put together in haste: 'cod wars' trawlermen's ... · 4 ‘cod wars’:...

HC 313

Put together in haste:'Cod Wars' trawlermen'scompensation scheme

Put together in haste:'Cod Wars' trawlermen's compensation scheme | February 2007 1

Put together in haste:'Cod Wars'trawlermen'scompensation scheme

2nd ReportSession 2006-2007Presented to Parliament Pursuant to Section 10(4) of the ParliamentaryCommissioner Act 1967

Ordered byThe House of Commonsto be printed on21 February 2007

HC 313London: The Stationery Office£18.00

2 Put together in haste:'Cod Wars' trawlermen's compensation scheme | February 2007

Put together in haste:'Cod Wars' trawlermen's compensation scheme | February 2007 3

I am laying this report before Parliament pursuant to section 10(4) of the ParliamentaryCommissioner Act 1967 because I consider that it is in the public interest to do so. The reportcontains the results of the investigation I have conducted following a number of complaints that Ireceived about the administration of the ex gratia compensation scheme for Icelandic watertrawlermen which was operated by the Department of Trade and Industry between October 2000and October 2002.

The results of this investigation naturally are of interest to those affected by the events that areoutlined in this report. The loss of the Icelandic water fishing industry in the aftermath of theresolution of the ‘Cod Wars’ of the 1970s had a profound effect on whole communities.

The scheme to provide compensation for the livelihoods that were lost as a result was a muchwelcomed initiative by the Government to remedy the effects of the collapse of the industry onthose directly involved.

That the operation of the scheme led to many complaints as a result of certain perceivedadministrative shortcomings in the way that the scheme had been devised and announced and as tothe way that applications for compensation were handled is a matter of regret.

The findings and recommendations I make in this report – and the Government’s response to them –will, I hope, both provide a full explanation as to what went wrong and result in a positive outcomefor the people who complained to me.

The issues I have dealt with in this investigation are, however, by no means specific to this particularex gratia compensation scheme or limited to the administrative practices within the Department ofTrade and Industry.

On 12 July 2005, I laid a report before Parliament that set out the results of my investigation intocomplaints about the administration of the ex gratia compensation scheme, operated by the Ministryof Defence, for British groups interned by the Japanese during the Second World War.

In that report – A Debt of Honour – I set out my findings that those who complained to me had beencaused injustice in consequence of maladministration. I found that:

• the scheme had been devised overly quickly and in such a manner as to lead to a lack ofclarity about eligibility for compensation;

• the announcement of the scheme had been unclear and imprecise and gave rise to confusionand misunderstanding;

• when problems had been identified no review of the impact of new eligibility criteria onapplicants whose cases had been already decided had been undertaken; and

• applicants had not been given sufficient information when the new eligibility rules wereenforced.

In addition to the recommendations I made on that occasion to remedy the injustice caused to thosedirectly affected by that scheme, I also made three more general recommendations, which I took upwith the Government.

Foreword

4 ‘Cod Wars’: Trawlermen’s compensation scheme | February 2007

These were that, in the absence of detailed rules or a statutory basis, ex gratia compensation schemesshould always be devised with due regard to the need to give proper examination to all of therelevant issues before a scheme is announced or advertised. Once advertised and implemented, anychanges to eligibility criteria within a scheme should be properly publicised and explained to thosepotentially affected by such changes. And where a scheme is the subject to mounting problems, aconsiderable number of complaints, or other criticisms from Parliament or the courts, it would begood administrative practice to review that scheme.

The reader of this report will see that many of the issues I identified in relation to the schemecovered by A Debt of Honour arose similarly in relation to the scheme covered by this report. Aneffective ex gratia compensation scheme that accords with principles of good administration wouldhave:

• scheme rules that are clearly articulated and which directly reflect the policy intention behindthe scheme;

• systems and procedures in place to deliver the scheme which have been properly planned andtested;

• sufficient flexibility built in to the rules and procedures to recognise the level of complexityin the subject matter covered by the scheme; and

• mechanisms which enable the success of the scheme in delivering its objectives to be keptunder review.

That did not happen in either case.

In addition to making recommendations to remedy the injustice I have determined was caused to therepresentative complainant in this investigation and to others in a similar position to her, I havetherefore also recommended that central guidance for public bodies should be developed thatspecifically relates to the development and operation of ex gratia compensation schemes.

The Government have accepted the need for such guidance. The Permanent Secretary at HM Treasury has told me that HM Treasury is planning to take forward my recommendation for specificguidance on the development and operation of ex gratia compensation schemes and that this workwill be incorporated into the revision of ‘Government Accounting’, which I understand is due forpublication later this year.

I welcome this commitment and hope that, through this guidance which should be of considerableassistance to those tasked with the administration of ex gratia compensation schemes, this report willmake a lasting contribution to the improvement of the delivery of public services.

Ann Abraham

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

February 2007

Introduction

1. This report sets out the results of myinvestigation into a complaint by Mrs A, referredby Austin Mitchell MP, about the ex gratiacompensation scheme for Icelandic watertrawlermen which ran between October 2000and October 2002.

2. The compensation scheme was devised bythe Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) andadministered by the Redundancy PaymentsService (RPS), a division of DTI located atWatford.

3. The report does not contain every detailinvestigated by my staff but I am satisfied thatnothing of significance has been omitted.

4. Mrs A's complaint, on behalf of her latehusband, was one of a number of complaintsabout the same matters received by my Office.Given that these complaints related to the samescheme and to similar matters I decided toconduct one investigation into the administrationof the scheme. This investigation - which usedMrs A as a representative complainant - covers allthe complaints about these matters that I havereceived.

5. There are three annexes to this report.Annex A contains the eligibility criteria for thescheme and the procedure for making claimsupon it. Annex B is a detailed chronology of theevents leading to the creation of the scheme andwhich therefore provide the context for Mrs A'scomplaint. Annex C is a brief outline of thosecomplaints I have received that are similar to thatof Mrs A.

My role and jurisdiction

6. My role is determined by theParliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, asamended (the 1967 Act). The 1967 Act providesthat my role is to investigate action taken by oron behalf of bodies within my jurisdiction in theexercise of their administrative functions.Complaints are referred to me by a Member ofthe House of Commons on behalf of a memberof the public who claims to have sufferedinjustice in consequence of maladministration inconnection with the action so taken.

7. When deciding whether I shouldinvestigate any individual complaint, I have tosatisfy myself, first, that the body or bodiescomplained about are within my jurisdiction.Such bodies are listed in Schedules 2 and 4 to the1967 Act. Secondly, I must also be satisfied thatthe actions complained about were taken in theexercise of that body's administrative functionsand are not matters that I am precluded frominvestigating by the terms of Schedule 3 to the1967 Act, which lists administrative matters overwhich I have no jurisdiction.

8. Mrs A's complaint was directed at DTI asthis is the department responsible for thecreation and, through their RPS division, theadministration of the scheme. While myinvestigation has shown that officials from othergovernment departments, (the then Ministry ofAgriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) and HMTreasury) were involved in discussions exploringthe practicalities of a compensation scheme, I amsatisfied that the actions complained about weretaken in the exercise of the administrativefunctions of DTI. Their Ministers and officialsmade the relevant decisions. DTI is listed inSchedule 2 to the 1967 Act and so it and itsdivisions and executive agencies are within myjurisdiction.

‘Cod Wars’: Trawlermen’s compensation scheme | February 2007 5


9. I may only investigate complaints aboutthe actions or inactions of bodies within myjurisdiction. The British Fisherman's Association(BFA) and legal counsel are not within myjurisdiction and I refer to them merely to set incontext the actions of DTI.

The campaign for acompensation scheme

10. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, followingthe then Government's agreement in 1976 torecognise a 200 mile fishing limit around Icelandin order to resolve the third dispute with theIcelandic authorities over fishing rights, generallyknown as the 'Cod Wars', almost all remainingdistant water trawlermen in the UK were maderedundant. The BFA was formed in the early 1980sto campaign for what the distant watertrawlermen believed to be fair compensation forthe loss of their industry.

11. Due to the nature of the distant watertrawlermen's employment, which required themto move regularly between vessels and operators,they were generally regarded as being employedon a casual basis, endorsed in some cases byofficials at the then Employment Department, sothat they could not then qualify for statutoryredundancy payments. In 1993, following adecision by the Court of Appeal that trawlermencould, in certain circumstances, qualify forredundancy payments, arrangements wereintroduced whereby DTI made ex gratia paymentsto distant water trawlermen who could, at thetime of their redundancy, have met the qualifyingconditions for a statutory redundancy paymentbut had failed to submit a claim because they had been advised that they would not qualify.The trawlermen believed the ex gratia payments

failed to reflect the effects of working practiceswithin the industry because the criterion forstatutory redundancy payments was used, whichrequired a minimum of two years' continuousservice with a single employer, when the natureof the trawlermen's employment required themto move regularly between vessels and operators.The effect of this was that some trawlermen withthirty-five years' service had received only £450.

12. Following the General Election of 1997,the distant water trawlermen intensified theircampaign. In November of that year the then DTIMinister met a delegation of MPs from thoseports most affected by the redundancies. At theconclusion of the meeting the Minister said hewould work with his MAFF counterpart to ensurea co-ordinated government response. In March1998 the MPs jointly signed a letter to the DTIMinister which criticised the previous ex gratiascheme as being completely at odds with the factthat the distant water trawlermen worked insidea 'scheme' also known as 'the pool system'.

13. In July 1997 the Member for Hull West andHessle addressed the House of Commons abouthis concerns for the distant water fishing industryand described the pool system as operated bythe shipowners and the then EmploymentDepartment, the objective of which was toensure that there was an adequate number ofqualified trawlermen readily available for allcompanies participating in the system. Forexample, when a trawler was tied up, perhaps fora refit, the trawlermen were entitled tounemployment benefit and would remain in thesystem. However, if the Employment Departmentdecided, in conjunction with a participatingcompany, that it would be appropriate for atrawlerman to cover a vacancy on a trawler thatbelonged to a different company, irrespective ofwhich waters the trawler fished, the trawlermanwas compelled to accept or had his benefitstopped. In March 1998, in a letter written by the


port MPs to the then Minister of State at DTI,they described that system as one operated inconjunction with the then EmploymentDepartment which required the trawlermen to beavailable to work for any employer they weredirected to. In August 1999 a senior DTI officialexplained to his colleagues the position of thetrawlermen with respect to social securitybenefits in a discussion about the availableoptions for responding to the BFA campaign. Hesaid the trawlermen were fully entitled tounemployment benefit, but once in receipt of it,they were never regarded as being available forwork by the then Employment Department andso were never directed to non-fishing work. It was the normal practice for fishermen to beobliged to sign on at a special benefit office setup by the then Employment Department situatedin the Fish Dock, rather than at their local office,for which they had the support and assistance ofthe trawler owners. Messengers, known as 'shipsrunners', liaised direct with the then EmploymentDepartment and would inform them if a man waswanted again. This system was unique as the menwere not technically unemployed and could havebeen paid 'shore pay' from their employersinstead of benefit.

14. In October 2000, in response to thetrawlermen's campaign, DTI introduced a scheme- the Trawlermen's Compensation Scheme - tocompensate fishermen formerly employed inIcelandic waters who had lost employmentfollowing the settlement of the last of the 'CodWars' in 1976. Under the eligibility criteria for thescheme a claim could be made in respect of thelast continuous period of work undertaken by the former Icelandic water trawlerman, providedthat period of work lasted for at least two yearsprior to 1 January 1980 and ended on or after 1January 1974. The scheme defined a continuousperiod of work as 'work as an Icelandic watertrawlerman during which there were no relevant

breaks between voyages of more than twelveweeks'. A 'relevant break' for the purpose of thescheme meant a break of more than twelveweeks during which work, of any duration, otherthan work as an Icelandic water trawlerman wasdone. Payment was made on the basis of £1,000for each year at sea with a maximum entitlementof £20,000.

The complainant

15. Mr A was, for over 20 years, employed asa deep-sea fisherman. In 1972 he was workingaboard a vessel which trawled deep waters,including those subsequently defined by thescheme as Icelandic. In February 1972 a refit of MrA's vessel commenced following a major surveythat took place every four years by the thenBoard of Trade (generally known as the Lloyd'ssurvey). During the period of that refit, accordingto Mrs A's account, Mr A's employers were unableto make another Icelandic water vessel availableto him (until May 1972) and he was left with noalternative but to take employment in North Seafishing as directed by the employment officer onthe dock at Grimsby.

16. Mrs A's claim on behalf of her latehusband was received by DTI on 18 October 2000and acknowledged. An award was made to her on10 November 2001, based on Mr A's service from19 May 1972 to 18 December 1979. That wasbecause his continuity of service had been broken by a period of service in 1972 on a NorthSea vessel, an invalid vessel under the scheme,during a between voyage break of longer thantwelve weeks. Mrs A appealed that award but on3 April 2002 DTI refused her appeal. Mrs A thenappealed to the independent adjudicatorappointed for the scheme. On 18 May 2002 theindependent adjudicator rejected Mrs A's appeal.


The complaint

17. Mrs A complains of maladministration byDTI in devising the scheme and assessingcompensation due to her late husband under theTrawlermen's Compensation Scheme. In particular,she complains that DTI failed to take account ofregulations relevant at the time relating tounemployment benefit for fishermen and theconsequences for them, should an Icelandic water vessel require a refit taking longer thantwelve weeks. This resulted in a failure to makeprovision for such circumstances within thescheme's eligibility criteria, and failure within thescheme to allow sufficient flexibility to considerunanticipated or deserving circumstances. HadMr A refused the North Sea work he was directedto by the dock officer, he would not have beenable to claim unemployment benefit with theresult that his family would have had no income.Work on another Icelandic water vessel remainedunavailable to Mr A for a period of twelve weeksand three days.

18. Mrs A alleges, through the Member whoreferred her complaint to me, that she hassuffered injustice in consequence, because DTImade an unjustified reduction in the amount ofthe award made to her on behalf of her latehusband. The Member has also referred to me the cases of those who make similar complaintsto Mrs A (see Annex C).

My investigation

19. The Member first asked me to investigateMrs A's complaint in a letter of 30 September2003. Following preliminary enquiries of DTI, myOffice sent the statement of Mrs A's complaintto the then Permanent Secretary at DTI on 19

December 2003 and requested his comments onmy proposed investigation of the complaintalong with copies of documents concerning theformulation of the compensation scheme, notesof meetings and copy correspondence withinterested parties, and any other documents thatmight help our understanding of the backgroundto the scheme and the factors that were takeninto consideration. The Permanent Secretaryreplied on 3 February 2004 with a memorandumof events by way of response to the statement ofcomplaint. He made clear that the relevant fileswere available for inspection, were they needed.On 20 February 2004 my staff made a preliminaryexamination of DTI's files relevant to thecomplaint.

20. My investigator then went through thosefiles examining the way in which the scheme wasdevised and administered, with particularreference to the rule concerning 'relevant breaks'and its impact upon the 'pool system'.

21. Mrs A was interviewed at her home on 16November 2004. She said she believed that herhusband worked on distant water vessels fromabout 1947 (although the available records showhim working from 1949) up until about 1978. Hespent a lot of time in Icelandic waters. Shecommented that the letters 'VG' entered on herlate husband's port record (a record of the vesselson which he worked and when) meant 'very good'and reflected his character, ability and generalconduct. He was highly regarded and had anexcellent reputation. Mrs A told me that whenher husband worked on vessels prior to 1972, ifthe vessel could not sail again immediately, theowners tried to retain as many of the crew aspossible. They would try to get them all onanother boat to try to keep the crew together.She explained that with most repairs or refitswhere a vessel was idle, it would normally only beso for two to three weeks unless major enginerepairs were required, which would take much


longer. However, where the vessel was subject toa Lloyd's survey that took place every four years,the refit time was usually three to four months.She was sure her husband had worked aboarddistant water trawlers that had had lengthyperiods tied up in excess of three months, but hehad always been asked to join another distantwater vessel.

22. Mrs A told me that in February 1972 herhusband would have much preferred to stay athome once his then vessel, the Ross Rodney, hadto undergo a lengthy refit. That was particularlyso because Mrs A was unwell at the time.However, the operation of the 'pool system' wassuch that he had no choice. She said that 'thetrawler owners behaved like Gods'. Her husbandhad been told, a few weeks after he had beendischarged from the Ross Rodney, that he wasrequired to work aboard a North Sea vessel, theSaxon Forward. If he had refused he would nothave been able to obtain unemployment benefit.It was simply not possible to keep a family of fivewithout any income at all and it was in that sensethat her husband had had no choice. It wasliterally a question of taking the job offered orthe family would starve. Mrs A said she feltaggrieved at the outcome of her claim on thecompensation scheme.

Requests for further information23. My investigator wrote to HM Treasury on17 August 2005 and requested minutes ofmeetings, emails or notes of conversations whichrelated to the Treasury's consideration of DTI'sproposals for the compensation scheme. Amember of their Science and Industry teamreplied on 17 October 2005 and enclosed emailsand submissions made to the Chief Secretaryconcerning the scheme. During the investigationrequests were also made to DTI for furtherinformation or for clarification of informationalready provided. I am grateful for the co-operation of both departments.

Genesis of the scheme 24. During the summer of 1999, officials fromDTI and MAFF worked on a submission to put totheir respective Secretaries of State in order torespond to the campaign by the BFA and the portMPs. On 18 October 1999 officials sent asubmission to the then Secretary of State. Thesubmission noted that, in dealing with thequestion of compensation scheme administration, payments would relate to timespent at sea over a period going back some 40years. That would produce practical difficulties ofadministration and a number of hard cases forwhich the Government would face criticism. Abriefing document attached to the submissionexplained that in June 1976 concern had beenexpressed by Ministers in Cabinet with referenceto a government funded scheme ofcompensation, which was also opposed by theTreasury. Their concern centred on the difficultythat would be encountered in identifying thosewho had suffered genuine hardship as a result ofthe agreement with Iceland, and in devising cleareligibility criteria. MAFF had estimated a loss of600 jobs in consequence of the agreement withIceland but almost all distant water trawlermenwere made redundant over the following fewyears. It would clearly be impossible to tell whichjobs were lost as a result of that agreement andwhich due to other factors. Therefore, inprinciple, any new compensation scheme shouldbe open to all former distant water trawlermenmade redundant in the period 1976-86.

25. On 14 February 2000 officials at HMTreasury sent a submission to the Chief Secretary.They said that the DTI/MAFF proposal that ascheme should be open to distant watertrawlerman made redundant between 1976 and1986 would weaken any link between thecompensation scheme and the actions of theGovernment. They emphasised their view thatthe need was for a tightly focused scheme. It


would be sensible to ask DTI to confirm that anypractical problems could be overcome. In abriefing paper attached to that submission,officials noted that the Chief Secretary might liketo ask, in terms of defensibility, whetherinformation existed that would allow a scheme tobe operated fairly. On 28 February 2000representatives from DTI, MAFF and HM Treasuryagreed that a small team of officials from thosethree Departments should conduct a scopingexercise to explore the feasibility and design of acompensation scheme and what it might contain.They would report to Ministers by 28 April 2000.

26. On 14 April 2000 officials at DTI sent asubmission to the Secretary of State that referredto a suggestion by the Minister of State that theymeet BFA representatives to discuss informationthey could provide in support of claims forcompensation. The officials recommended thatno such meeting take place until the Secretary ofState had decided in principle to go ahead with acompensation scheme. Officials said they were atthat time preparing a note addressing the issue ofthe adequacy of information on which to assessclaimants' eligibility. The officials were satisfiedthat they could provide a positive response onthe point and the information offered by the BFAwas not required for the scoping exercise,although the BFA information would fill in gaps intheir existing records.

27. On 9 May 2000 DTI officials sent asubmission to the Secretary of State attached towhich was a paper suggesting three options forlimiting eligibility under the scheme. The papernoted that with all three options payments couldbe restricted to those former trawlermen whohad worked for vessel owners known to havetrawled in Icelandic waters - although in practicemost vessel owners were likely to have hadinterests in most distant water fishing operations.A further eligibility condition that couldreasonably be imposed with all three options was

a requirement for two years' continuous servicewithin the industry (disregarding short between-voyage breaks) but not necessarily with the sameemployer. That could be justified on the basisthat a claimant should be able to demonstrate acertain degree of commitment to the industry inorder to be eligible for compensation. On 24 May2000, in a submission to the Chief Secretary,Treasury officials stated that in terms ofadequacy of records, DTI was confident thatpayments could be restricted to formertrawlermen who worked for vessel owners knownto have trawled in Icelandic waters. Proof ofeligibility could be obtained from copies of therelevant fishing records and/or National Insurancecontribution records from the then Departmentof Social Security (DSS).

28. On 22 June 2000 the Chief Secretary toHM Treasury wrote to the Secretary of State atDTI and said he was prepared to agree to acompensation scheme. That was on the basis of arequirement of two years' continuous service inthe industry (not necessarily with the sameemployer); a payment of £1,000 per year ofservice at sea; payment under the previous exgratia arrangements 1993-95 was to be offsetagainst the claimant's entitlement under the newscheme; share fishermen were to be included;there would be payment in full to widows anddependants of deceased trawlermen. Heproposed a limit of £10,000 on individualpayments (subsequently increased before thelaunch of the scheme in October 2000 to£20,000). He also proposed that the scheme belimited to those who left the industry during1974-79 but did not provide any reason forselecting that option. In terms of timescale hesaid they should look to expedite the schemequickly and an announcement could be made inthe summer. Given the normal rules onexpenditure incurred without specific statutoryauthority the scale of the scheme (over £900,000


per annum) must be concluded within two years,in order to avoid primary legislation. He thereforeproposed that the deadline for admitting claimsshould be 31 December 2002.

Development of the scheme29. On 29 June 2000 DTI officials were askedto take forward the drafting of a note on thescheme's eligibility criteria fleshing out the basiccriteria agreed by the Chief Secretary to HMTreasury. In answer to a question from a seniorofficial, they said they thought they weresufficiently advanced in their preparations thatthe Secretary of State could invite claims on thescheme at the forthcoming Party Conference. On7 July 2000 DTI officials met to discuss a paperconcerning the proposed scheme including theeligibility criteria. The paper suggested that inorder to be eligible for payment under thescheme, a claimant must have worked at sea as afisherman for a continuous period of at least twoyears ending on a date between 1 January 1974and 31 December 1979; for one or more vesselowners who carried out fishing in Icelandicwaters; and did not continue or resume workingat sea as a fisherman at a later date. Anoccasional interval of up to one or two months -for example, an interval between voyages orbetween work for different vessel owners -should not be taken to break continuity for thosepurposes and should be counted as part of thecontinuous period. The paper asked whetherthere was any need to clear the proposals withMinisters or HM Treasury or MAFF, and also askedwhether there was any merit in consulting theBFA on eligibility criteria, once an officialannouncement of the scheme was made.

30. In July 2000 the Chairman of the Hull BFAsent to DTI officials a list of reasons for a break ina trawlerman's service record. He said that waswhy the Government's two year rule in which toqualify for compensation could seriously affect atrawlerman's sea record and thus his entitlement

to compensation. Any gaps in a man's recordcaused legitimately by the reasons on the listshould be disregarded when the two year rule forqualifying was calculated. Among those reasonswere time off the ship's log when the ship'sannual survey could last for days or weeks andevery four years the Lloyd's survey, which wouldtake the ship out of service for weeks. When aship was lost, survivors would get twelve weeks'survival pay on shore. He did not say the list wasexhaustive. On 11 July 2000 RPS staff asked DTIofficials for clarification on the time limits for theoccasional interval between voyages. On receipt,that question was highlighted and '3-4 months'written beside it with the '4' crossed through. On18 July 2000 DTI officials replied to RPS. They saidthat a gap in service of more than three months,whatever the reason for it, should be taken asbreaking continuity for the purposes of thescheme. The BFA had at one time given themdetails of the reasons why people might not be at sea and the longest reasonable gap was twelveweeks' leave for survivors of a sunken vessel. Thatcondition should be rigorously applied. On thesame day officials noted that the Secretary ofState had wanted a firm opening date to beincluded in the initial announcement of thescheme; officials suggested 1 October 2000.

31. On 28 July 2000 in a written answer to theHouse of Commons, the Secretary of State saidthat 'the Government recognised that formerIcelandic distant water trawlermen suffered aninjustice. Many lost their jobs through thesettlement of the "Cod Wars" by the thenGovernment and received little or no help. Giventhe exceptional circumstances in which theylacked basic employment protection we intendto remedy this by establishing a new scheme ofcompensation to be administered by myDepartment's Redundancy Payments Service.Further details of the scheme and when andwhere claim forms will be available are to be


announced before it is formally opened on 2October'.

32. On 2 August 2000 DTI officials told theMinister of State that the Secretary of State hadapproved a meeting between DTI officials andthe BFA. Although officials had previously spokento the Hull BFA Chairman by telephone, theyasked the Minister's office to make arrangements.On 15 August 2000 a policy official notified theoffice of the Minister of State that they hadagreed 8 September 2000 for a meeting with theChairman and other members of the Hull BFA.Meanwhile, on 7 August 2000 DTI's legal sectionasked policy officials whether a break from theindustry of less than three months brokecontinuity. A policy official replied on 8 August2000 and said a break of three months wouldbreak continuity of service. The BFA had giventhem 101 reasons why there were breaks in serviceand none of them was longer than twelve weeks.That is why they had opted for that period. Theway the fishing industry was run in ports like Hulland Grimsby was that all trawler owners belongedto the same 'pool' and the trawlermen could goout on any trawler they wanted. That was whythey were never considered in the past to qualifyfor statutory redundancy payments as theysigned on and off after each voyage. On 17 August 2000 DTI officials sent a draft of thecompensation scheme to the legal section fortheir consideration. The draft included a sectionthat allowed for appeals to an independentadjudicator for a final decision.

33. On 18 August 2000 the legal sectionreplied and attached their redraft of the scheme.The redraft said that a claim could be made inrespect of the last continuous period of work ofat least two years undertaken by former Icelandictrawlermen provided the continuous period ofwork ended on a date between 1 January 1974 and31 December 1979, and work as an Icelandictrawlerman was not resumed after the date on

which the continuous period of work ended.They noted that one effect would be that atrawlerman who worked for more than two years,had a break of three months and then worked forless than two years after that would get nothing.They asked whether policy officials were happywith that and they said that they were. The legalsection's redraft defined 'continuous period ofwork' as a period of work as an Icelandic watertrawlerman during which there were no breaksbetween voyages to Icelandic waters (forwhatever reason, including but not limited toillness or fishing on vessels outside Icelandicwaters) of more than twelve weeks. Breaks of lessthan twelve weeks, even if in total these addedup to more than twelve weeks, counted towardsthe period of work. The legal section noted that a trawlerman who worked on local vessels for themajority of his time but did an Icelandic tripevery three months or so could make a claim.Officials said they were content to live with that.The legal section had understood that mixedservice (vessels that sailed both distant andmiddle waters or distant waters and the NorthSea as opposed to just one of those) was rare;officials confirmed that and said they believed itwas virtually unknown.

34. On 24 August 2000 the Minister of State'soffice sent a memo to policy officials in which heagreed that the draft note on eligibility andprocedure for the scheme should be sent to theChairman and Secretary of the Hull BFA prior tothe scheduled 8 September 2000 meeting. TheMinister also suggested that it would be wise toinvite representatives from the other ports tocome in separately to see policy officials. He saidit might also be wise to write to the port MPsindicating that that was the intention of officials,given the close links between the port MPs andrepresentatives of local fishing communities. TheMinister commented that there may well beother problems that emerged in the course of


those meetings.

35. On 3 September 2000 the Chairman ofthe Hull BFA wrote to a DTI official and enclosedan amended (as of 1 September 2000) list ofreasons for breaks in a trawlerman's servicetogether with an agenda. The agenda listed 41points. Point 13 concerned breaks in service andreferred to the amended list of reasons. TheChairman wished to know whether some or all ofthose breaks would figure in the calculation ofpayments. If not all, then which of the reasons hehad provided would not qualify for payment? On4 September 2000 officials wrote to the BFArepresentatives for Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwoodand said that the eligibility criteria had beenagreed by Ministers. The purpose of the meetingon 8 September 2000 would therefore be todiscuss ways of ensuring that former trawlermeneligible for payment got it as quickly as possible.They enclosed a copy of the application form and a definition of the scheme criteria drawn upby DTI's legal section. A copy of the guidancenotes would be available at the meeting.

36. On the 8 September 2000 a DTI officialtook a note of the meeting with the BFAs. Point 7on that note recorded that the BFA had said thatallowing a twelve week gap in employment wasnot enough. A trawlerman could be waiting for ajob after getting a Mate's ticket and that wouldextend the gap between voyages. They explainedabout 'walkabout' which meant a man wasblacklisted and that getting a job often dependedon the whim of the trawler owners. Trawlerscould also be laid up because they had alreadyfished their quota. They suggested that up to sixmonths should be allowed between voyagesbefore continuity was considered broken andthat 'special circumstances' might justify an evenlonger between-voyage gap. They said that radiooperators should be included in the scheme. Apolicy official ended the meeting by explainingthat the BFA's points would be put to the

Secretary of State for consideration. Later thatsame day the legal section sent policy officialsamendments to the scheme documents whichthey thought reflected that morning's meeting, asthey meant that the scheme would then includethose who worked on ships which may havespent most of their time on trips to other waters,provided they made at least two Icelandic watertrips. If they made any Icelandic water trips thatmeant they must have been distant water vessels.A policy official replied and said they intended toput a submission to Ministers to ask for decisionson the radio operators point and whether or notthey should allow some exceptions to the twelveweek rule on breaks in continuity and also to askthem to sign off the documentation.

37. On 11 September 2000 a policy officialsent a submission to the Secretary of State inwhich he pointed out that the need to considerspecial exceptions and supporting evidence forlonger than twelve week breaks, which could beso difficult to obtain so long after the event,would increase the complexity of the schemeand the length of time taken by RPS to assessclaims. The submission recommended that, onbalance, longer gaps should be allowed in thecase of sickness or injury, where supported bydocumentary evidence, but that no otherexceptions should be made. The Secretary ofState replied on 13 September 2000 and said hewas happy to have special exceptions for thosewho had journey gaps of more than twelveweeks, although he wished the official to confirmthat the Minister of State was happy with theproposal.

38. On 18 September 2000 the Minister ofState emailed policy officials concerning thesubmission to the Secretary of State. He said thatregarding gaps of more than twelve weeks, ofcourse illness or injury should not count againstthe men but there were other circumstances suchas 'walkabout' where trawlermen were left to kick


their heels for longer than twelve weeks beforefinding a ship. They needed to be flexible inrecognising that those with whom they wished todeal were those who left to take other jobs andthen returned. They should be identifiable. Apolicy official replied and explained that thedifficulty he saw with allowing breaks of morethan twelve weeks for reasons such as 'walkabout'was that it was unlikely that reliable documentaryevidence would be available so long after theevent to prove the reason for the break. If theylooked at it the other way round and said theywould disregard all breaks of over twelve weekswhere the reason for the break was that a formertrawlerman took a break outside the industry fora time, checking the claims would be much moredifficult. National Insurance records would haveto be checked and the then Benefits Agencyasked if they were willing to take that work. Itwould also increase the costs of the scheme.

39. Later that same day the Minister of Stateand the policy official continued their discussionat a meeting. The Minister's outstanding concernwas the rule that between-voyage gaps of morethan twelve weeks should be regarded asbreaking continuity. He wanted to limit that tobetween-voyage gaps in which the formertrawlerman took employment outside the distantwater fishing industry, so that between-voyagegaps of whatever length would be disregarded ifthey were for reasons other than those includingbut not limited to injury, illness, 'walkabout', andtraining at naval college. The Minister pointed outthat in practice the trawlermen would not havehad between-voyage gaps of more than twelveweeks voluntarily, unless it was to work outsidethe industry, so any such gap could be assumedto have been imposed upon them, or at least nothave been of their own making. He did not definewhat he meant by working outside the industry.The official pointed out that such a rule wouldmake it more difficult to validate claims but the

Minister responded that the number of claimantswho had between-voyage gaps of more thantwelve weeks, and who could not providedocumentary evidence of the reasons for them,would be small.

40. The policy official subsequently recordedthat the problem he saw with what the Ministerproposed was that it would put the onus onoperational staff to consider potentially manydifferent types of documentary evidence ofreasons for between voyage gaps of more thantwelve weeks. If the exception to the twelveweek rule was limited to cases of injury or illnessas policy officials had proposed, the onus wouldthen be on the claimant to prove that he was illor injured during the case in question. However,the Minister clearly had strong feelings on thepoint. Policy officials identified the difficulty asan operational one rather than one of policy andin principle they could make the change theMinister had requested. Subject to any commentfrom RPS, policy officials suggested that thechange be made.

41. On 25 September 2000 policy officialsemailed the office of the Secretary of State andsaid that the proposals for the scheme had beendiscussed with the Minister of State. He had hadone concern about the conditions for breaks incontinuous service, which was the issue of'special exceptions'. They had addressed that byamending the scheme documentation to makeclear that continuity was regarded as having beenbroken by any between-voyage gap of more thantwelve weeks where during that gap the claimantwas, for part or all of the time, engaged in workoutside the industry. That meant work on vesselsother than those that trawled in Icelandic waters.Other between-voyage gaps of more than twelveweeks would all be disregarded on theassumption that they must have been for reasonsbeyond his control and that it would be unfair toregard him as having left the industry during that


period. The amendment would make it moredifficult and time consuming for RPS staff tovalidate claims where the issue arose, but itwould produce a fairer result and be welcomedby the BFA. On 29 September 2000 an officialsent an email to colleagues attaching the pressrelease dated 2 October 2000 announcing theopening of the scheme. On the same date anofficial told the office of the Minister of State byemail that the scheme application form andaccompanying notes had been successfullydelivered to the ports of Hull, Grimsby andFleetwood in time for the formal opening of thescheme on that day.

Operation of the scheme42. On 24 October 2000, following a queryfrom the legal section, policy officials clarifiedthat the wording of the scheme document meantthat a period of work of less than two years aftera break would be enough to disqualify claimantsin respect of their earlier service, however longthat was, but would not be enough to qualifythem for the scheme. Although that was theintention, policy officials foresaw problems ifthey received claims from people who hadworked for twenty years, had a break in service,and then did one more voyage before leaving theindustry.

43. On 29 November 2000 the office of theMinister of State emailed policy officialsconcerning a constituent of the Minister, aformer trawlerman, whose daughter had acondition that was not properly diagnosed untilshe was aged 18, by which time it was far tooprogressed to be treated properly. The formertrawlerman had taken breaks of service of morethan three months to help treat his daughter whowent through several serious operations with theaim of improving her condition. Policy officialsreplied the same day and said that the formertrawlerman's breaks in service to look after hisdaughter should not present a problem in terms

of calculating his claim. The breaks should betreated as part of his continuous period ofservice - as he was not working for anotheremployer outside the industry during thoseperiods.

44. On 16 January 2001 at a meeting to discussfinancial implications for the scheme, RPS staffreported that very few of the trawlermen hadbetween-voyage breaks where they workedoutside the industry. It was becoming verydifficult to find out which ships had actuallysailed to Iceland. They also pointed out that,according to the maps, parts of the Faroes'territorial waters were actually within 200 milesof Iceland which meant that those who hadfished the Faroes would also be eligible. RPS staffsaid they had also discussed the position of thoseworking in dry dock or other such activities witha policy official. It was confirmed the claims werevalid unless the trawlerman concerned wasactually working outside the industry. On 31January 2001 policy officials discussed by emailhow they applied the compensation rules inpractice. They had drawn up a list of vessels thathad sailed to Icelandic waters although it was notyet finalised. If the trawlerman worked on avessel not on that list continuity was broken sothat the start of the period used to calculatecompensation was determined by the start dateof the trip on a listed vessel which immediatelyfollowed the voyage on an unlisted vessel. If theperiods between voyages on a listed vessel wereall twelve weeks or less it did not matter whatthe claimant did in the break periods. Whateverhe did it did not break continuity. If any periodbetween voyages on a listed vessel was morethan twelve weeks it broke continuity if there wasgood evidence that the claimant did any workwhatsoever, no matter how short the duration,during that period. If the claimant did not do anywork in that period it did not break continuity nomatter how long the period. However, if that


were correct they might need to discuss asituation in which a claimant went to Australia forfive years. Officials agreed that it could lookexceptionally generous if, for example, someonehad gone to Australia for five years, had not doneany work in that period, and had then returned tothe industry for a period of at least two years.

45. On 14 February 2001 there was a furthermeeting between policy officials and RPS staff todiscuss the financial implications of the scheme.RPS staff said they were confident they couldestablish a list of vessels that had sailed toIceland but not what they did after 1979. DTIofficials said the BFA had not been quite so frankwith them as they might have been about whathappened to the deep-sea trawling industry after1979. The meeting noted that the tradepublication 'Fishing News' had a list of trawlersreturning to port and where they had been.Officials agreed to check the publication'sarchives. The notes of the meeting record thatofficials would have to advise Ministers of thepossible overspend if they simply paid everyonewho fished in Iceland, no matter what. Theycould also add that the scheme was set up in ahurry, at the insistence of Ministers, and that theywere still having discussions with the BFA right upuntil the days before the scheme opened. Theyalso knew more about the trawler industry thanthey did at the beginning and that was why someof the problems had arisen. On 27 February 2001the Secretary of the Grimsby BFA wrote to apolicy official. She described as appalling thedecision to refuse compensation to a formertrawlerman because he took work on a trawlersailing out of Australia rather than go on thebenefit system.

46. On 20 March 2001 the Secretary of theAberdeen BFA emailed a policy official. He saidhe was disappointed to see serious faults anddiscrepancies in the scheme. It was clear that thatsituation had developed as a direct consequence

of Ministers receiving and responding to invalidinformation from unqualified sources in the formof advice, instructions and personal opinionsfrom deckhands unqualified to comment onindustrial relations or maritime matters of suchimportance. He said there was no shortage ofbona fide advice from experienced and qualifiedmarine personnel fully prepared to contribute tothe debate. A policy official replied the same day.He said when the scheme rules were drawn upthe previous year Ministers and officials tookcareful account of advice and information from awide range of different sources, includingexperienced and qualified marine personnel.

47. On 17 April 2001 there was an exchange ofemails between policy officials concerning thedefinition of an 'Icelandic Water Trawlerman'.They said that the definition had been quitecarefully constructed to meet the demands ofthe BFA. One official pointed out that they hadhad numerous discussions with the Minister ofState and exchanged emails with his office aboutvarious aspects of the scheme rules before theywere finalised. He was sure that the definition ofan 'Icelandic Water Trawlerman' had come up atsome point, although he was doubtful whetheranything specific would have been recorded inwriting. The rules had been cleared with theSecretary of State who had approved them,having been assured by the Minister of State thatthe BFA were content with them. However, he didnot think they had ever gone into the level ofdetail that they were then doing.

48. On 23 April 2001 policy officials discusseda draft of operational rules for the scheme inorder to assist RPS staff. In attempting to clarifywho would qualify as an Icelandic WaterTrawlerman the draft said that shore based workon an Icelandic trawler, for example, repairing theboat or its nets, did not count as work as anIcelandic Water Trawlerman. In clarifying thedefinition of a relevant break under the scheme


rules, the draft noted that it would frequently bea key factor in determining the amount ofcompensation. The draft provided someexamples of what did and what did not breakcontinuity. Time spent in prison did not breakcontinuity of service as the prisoner was notdoing paid work for an employer. Fulfilling dutiesin the armed forces, Royal Naval Reserve orNational Service did not break continuity as itwas not paid employment for an employer. Thedraft operational rules, in one example, explainedthat a man had a period exceeding twelve weeksbetween voyages and during part of that time hewas employed working on repairs to the vessel inharbour. The work in harbour was paid work foran employer and did not count as working as anIcelandic Water Trawlerman. On that same day apolicy official saw an article in the Hull Daily Mailin which the Minister of State was reported tohave said in relation to the scheme that thesystem had to be more flexible. Other policyofficials wondered whether the Minister hadreally said that. The Minister's office thenconfirmed by email that the Minister hadinformed them that he had made that remark.

Changes to the rules of the scheme49. On 19 June 2001 a policy official sent asubmission to the new Minister of State in whichthe Minister was informed that there wasconcern about the scheme in the local mediacovering the fishing ports and among the portMPs, particularly the Member for Hull West andHessle and the referring Member. On 17 July 2001the referring Member faxed a letter to the newSecretary of State in which he referred to theproblems that had arisen in the administration ofthe compensation scheme. Among the manypoints he made he said there was a majorproblem over breaks in service. Those could arisefrom a whole series of causes - engineering orrepair work on the vessel, Lloyd's survey lay-ups,illness, injury, family illness and holidays all

needed to be allowed for. Yet there was anotherproblem in Grimsby which he urged should notbe accepted as producing a break in service.When an owner had no vessels sailing to Iceland,where a vessel was overcrewed, or where therewas a disciplinary offence, fishermen wererequired to work on North Sea or Middle Watervessels. They had no choice. If they refused theylost their jobs. The Fishermen's Employmentoffice on the dock required them to take anyvessel available or lose their benefit. That was abasic part of the conditions of employment fordistant water trawlermen. It could not, therefore,be regarded as a break or used as an excuse toshorten service or disqualify.

50. Also, on 17 July 2001, policy officials sent abriefing paper to the Secretary and Minister ofState which identified issues that had beenfrequently raised concerning the schemeincluding the issue of breaks in service. The paperexplained that the port MPs had asked for certainbreaks in service to be discounted, but that wasnot possible under the scheme rules. It notedthat the BFA had also been concerned aboutbetween-voyage gaps of more than twelve weeksbreaking continuity both for the purposes of thetwo year qualifying period and calculating theamount due. They had argued for 'specialexceptions' that would justify a longer between-voyage gap being disregarded. It had finally beenagreed by the then Secretary of State that allgaps, of whatever duration, should bedisregarded, unless the former trawlerman tookwork outside the industry, in which case thetwelve week rule would stand. Under the schemerules, continuity was broken only by a between-voyage gap of more than twelve weeks duringwhich other work (including other fishing on nonIcelandic vessels) was done. All other gapscounted as part of the period of continuousservice as an Icelandic Water Trawlerman,regardless of what was done during them.


However, one effect had been that some formertrawlermen who had 15 or 20 years' service onIcelandic water vessels and then did some shorework or fished on non Icelandic water vessels fora time before returning to the industry foundthat they did not qualify for a payment, orqualified only for a reduced amount, as theirwork outside the industry broke their continuityfor the purposes of the scheme rules.

51. On 18 July 2001 the Secretary of State metthe port MPs to discuss their concerns about thecompensation scheme. Earlier that day, officialshad briefed her as to what issues the MPs mightraise with her and the referring Member hadmade a number of points among which werebreaks in service. Officials said MPs had more orless asked them to ignore certain breaks inservice where there was a 'deserving' case.However, if they 'bent' the rules for one, therewas no justification for not doing the same forany other person. The Member for Hull West andHessle had also raised breaks in service butofficials believed that the rules had not beenunderstood. They thought it was just unfortunatethat some people took shore work - for veryvalid reasons - but it still broke continuity underthe scheme rules. At the meeting with the portMPs the Secretary of State said she realised therewere certain cases that did not fall within therules. The MPs therefore had an opportunity totell her and the Minister of State about theirconcerns. The Member for Cleethorpes saidthere were several issues, one of which was howbreaks in service were defined. The referringMember referred to his faxed letter of 17 July2001 and emphasised that 'some vessels had beenforced to fish in the North Sea' and that shouldnot be counted as a break in service. Followingthat meeting, the Secretary of State said sherequired a further meeting and noted that therewas a gulf between the expectation of thescheme and the actual scheme rules. She and the

Minister of State needed to see an analysis of thedifferent groups that included trawlermen wholeft the industry altogether - for unemployment,or for non-fishing jobs - trawlermen who leftIcelandic fishing and went into other fishingeither on non Icelandic vessels, converted ex-Icelandic vessels or non-converted Icelandicvessels. She wanted to understand how eachgroup, and there could be other categories, wastreated under DTI's view of the scheme rules andwhy.

52. On 30 July 2001, following a furthermeeting between the port MPs and DTI officialson 24 July 2001, the Secretary of State asked herofficials to provide a submission with advice onhow they could move forward. On 31 July 2001officials sent a submission to the Secretary ofState that discussed various suggested rulechanges and their cost. Paragraph 8 of thatsubmission discussed the issue of whethervoyages on vessels not on the list of Icelandicwater trawlers should not break continuity butshould count towards it. If that change wereadopted it would go a long way to severing thelink between the scheme and the 'Cod Wars'settlement. In effect, so long as a man made aspecified number of voyages on Icelandic watertrawlers his entire fishing history would oftencount towards the calculation of compensation.In practice such a change would have to becombined with abandoning the 1979 cut-off pointotherwise all those who continued any kind offishing after 1979 would be disqualified. Thefinancial cost would almost certainly beenormous and could as much as double the costof the scheme. As to the point about whethervoyages made from overseas ports to whichtrawlermen were posted by their employersshould not break continuity, officials believed thenumber of such cases to be in the order of 100. Ifthat were correct the financial implications wouldnot be great but it would represent a further


major step away from the objective of thescheme and would make it harder to justify notmaking the more significant change of countingservice on all non-Icelandic vessels. On 6 August2001 the Secretary of State's office told officialsthat the Secretary of State had seen thesubmission. She wished officials to obtain legaladvice from counsel on the risks of the schemebeing legally challenged by way of judicial review,because there was a mismatch betweenexpectations and what the scheme actuallydelivered - as well as some ambiguities in therules of the scheme. On the point as to whethervoyages on non-Icelandic vessels should notbreak continuity but count towards it, shecommented that that approach lookeduntenable.

53. On 31 August 2001 DTI's legal section sentinstructions to counsel to advise in conferenceon the risk of challenge to the scheme by way ofjudicial review in the event that certain ruleschanges were made, of which there were sixoptions labelled A-F. Option E was that work onnon-Icelandic vessels should not be counted asother work which, if done during a break fromwork on Icelandic vessels of more than twelveweeks, would break continuity. The effect ofoption E would be that the continuous period ofwork could be treated as not being broken by'relevant breaks' of longer than twelve weeksfrom work on Icelandic water vessels, where thepaid work done during those breaks was otherfishing work such as work done out of non UKports or fishing in the North Sea. Since breaks oflonger than twelve weeks where no other paidwork was done could count towards thecontinuous period of work (if, where possible,evidence of the absence of other work duringthe break was provided) such fishing work couldeffectively attract compensation. Another effectof the change would be that a sufficiently longperiod of work on Icelandic water vessels would

not be cancelled out by a 'relevant break' oflonger than twelve weeks (where the work inquestion was other fishing work) followed by aperiod of Icelandic water vessel work which wasnot long enough to qualify for compensation.Equally, a trawlerman who had a long period ofservice followed by a relevant break of more thantwelve weeks in which he did other fishingfollowed by a shorter 'last continuous period ofwork of at least two years' would becompensated in respect of the whole of thattime.

54. The notes of the conference with counselon 4 September 2001 reveal that option E wasdiscussed and it was noted that it was necessaryto consider continuity in connection with it.Although the twelve week break had an arbitraryflavour they did have a good reason for somesuch rule, in that men must have been dependenton, and committed to, Icelandic water fishingwork in order to be eligible for compensation.Additionally it was the BFA who had suggestedthat anything over twelve weeks would mean thatmen were effectively out of the industry. No onehad been suggesting that there was anythingwrong with the twelve week rule although it hadproduced some hard cases such as the man whowas onshore to look after his sick wife and whodid some onshore work. Although that was a hardcase it was not the kind which would have beenreasonably foreseeable, such that the decision tomake the rule could be said to be perverse. Thepoint of option E (saying that work on vesselsother than Icelandic water vessels did not breakcontinuity and qualified for compensation) wasto alleviate the hard case of a man who had along career on Icelandic water vessels but whowas unable to establish continuity in the relevantfive year period. If the amendment were made itwould create bizarre anomalies like one of thecase examples given to counsel. The examplegiven was of a man who had spent his whole

career working on inshore and middle watervessels most of which did not go to Icelandicwaters at all. However, he made one trip towardsthe start of his career and one in 1978 towardsthe end of his career on vessels that had at sometime made a couple of trips to Icelandic waters(not when he was on them) and so qualified asIcelandic water vessels. Without the change assuggested by option E he had no valid claim tocompensation. However, if option E wereimplemented all his voyages between the twotrips on Icelandic water vessels would counttowards compensation so that he would receive asignificant amount despite not having been toIcelandic waters and not fished on any vesselwhich was significantly affected by their closure.They were entitled to take that into accountwhen considering option E. They were alsoentitled to treat the fact that the option wouldweaken the link with the 'Cod War' settlement asan important policy consideration.

55. The conference discussed another optionwhich was to discount other fishing work whenassessing whether continuity was broken but onlyto compensate in respect of Icelandic watervessel work. That would avoid overcompensationof trawlermen such as the one in the exampleand alleviate the hard case problem but the linkto the 'Cod Wars' would still be weakened. Itwould also be very expensive and administrativelydifficult to compensate in respect of each voyageon an Icelandic water vessel. A challenge bysomeone excluded as a result of not takingoption E would be that the decision to excludehim was perverse. One could not say that such achallenge would definitely fail - its strengthwould depend on its facts. At that stage itappeared, however, that challenges of that kindought to be capable of being defended. It wasaccordingly defensible not to take option E. Thedecision to take that option was substantially oneof policy.

56. On 15 October 2001 the Secretary of Statewrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Shesaid that DTI had received numerousrepresentations from port MPs and otherrepresentatives of the former trawlermen aboutcertain aspects of the scheme that theyconsidered were operating unfairly. Havingconsidered the issues fully and in the light oflegal advice she had concluded that the eligibilitycriteria for the scheme should be changed. Thetotal cost of the scheme could go up to around£35 million - around £10 million more than theyhad thought. She was prepared to find theadditional resources necessary to fund the rulechanges from other DTI priorities. She hopedthat, in the light of that, the Chief Secretary feltable to agree to her proceeding as she hadsuggested. On 22 October 2001 the ChiefSecretary to the Treasury replied. He agreed that,given counsel's opinion, it would be pragmatic torelax the criteria as suggested rather than facethe costly experience of a judicial review if thelikelihood was that a case would be won.However, he expected it to be a once and for allchange that did not lead to further challenges byclaimants at the new boundaries of thecompensation scheme. In order to ensure thatthat was the case he asked the Secretary of Stateto look at both the presentation and the impactof the changes, before making anyannouncement.

57. On 26 October 2001 the Secretary ofState announced changes to the rules in thecompensation scheme. She said 'Following therule changes I have decided to make, distantwater trawlermen who continued fishing afterthe end of 1979 on former Icelandic water vesselswill no longer be disqualified from receivingcompensation for that reason'. The effect of thechange to the rules was that all former distantwater trawlermen who had two years' continuousservice prior to 1980 on vessels that trawled in


Icelandic waters and who finished that service onor after 1 January 1974 would then be eligible forcompensation, subject to the other requirementsof the scheme. Service on those vessels after1979, or after the end of the qualifying period ofcontinuous service, would not, however, counttowards the period for calculating payments.Furthermore, periods of service on formerIcelandic vessels of less than two years whichtook place between 1974 and 1979 and after arelevant break from working on those vessels,would no longer disqualify claimants.

Continued dissatisfaction with the scheme rules58. On 30 October 2001 policy officials sawan article in the Grimsby Telegraph in which thereferring Member was quoted as saying that theextra £10 million for the scheme was very goodnews. He went on to say that there were twoproblems which remained unresolved whichmeant that trawlermen could not rejoice at thatstage. One problem was that breaks in servicewere causing problems for some people.Fishermen who had fished Icelandic waters couldhave been put on North Sea vessels and that wascounting against them. It was being seen as abreak in service when in fact it was part of thecondition of service. That same day the office ofthe Secretary of State emailed a policy officialand asked whether the issues raised by thereferring Member in that article were really aproblem and did they involve further changes tothe rules or just changes in the list of Icelandicvessels. They required advice as Ministers orofficials might need to make it clear to thereferring Member that there would be no morerule changes. The policy official replied that theissues could well be a problem and would shortlyprovide further and better particulars. On 31October 2001 a policy official noted that theMember for Hull West and Hessle had written inrequesting a change in the rules so that periodson non Icelandic vessels should not stop

someone being paid or paid less. The caseinvolved a break of about a year on non-validvessels during 1972-73.

59. On 15 November 2001 policy officials senta briefing to the Minister of State in readiness fora meeting with the port MPs scheduled for 21November 2001. They summarised the recent rulechanges and said that the Government was thensatisfied that the scheme was properly targetedand was not prepared to make any further rulechanges. A 'relevant break' was classed as a breakfrom work on an Icelandic water vessel of longerthan twelve weeks during which other work wasdone. That meant any work other than on vesselsthat trawled in Icelandic waters. In effect thatmeant that a number of former trawlermen whohad many years' unbroken service on Icelandicwater vessels ended up receiving no payment atall as they did not have a two year consecutiveperiod on Icelandic water vessels leading up totheir final voyage. As the majority of those breaksoccurred after 1974 they could then be ignoredand more people would receive a payment. On 21November 2001 the port MPs met the Minister ofState, policy officials and representatives fromRPS. The Member for Hull West and Hesslewelcomed the recent changes but said that therewere still minor problems, equally valid to theclaimants. Continuity/breaks in service were still aproblem as were invalid vessels. The continuityclause was a problem for most port MPs whoshared their examples. A problem for Aberdeenand Grimsby was the 'pool' system where menwere required by employers to take the next jobthat came up irrespective of whether it was on anIcelandic water vessel or not - this meant thatmany had found it difficult to satisfy the schemecriteria. The referring Member said that trips toAustralia should not count towards the £1,000 peryear but should not break continuity. TheMember for Aberdeen Central said that the MPswere not requesting a further change in the


scheme rules but that there should be scope forflexibility in the interpretation of the criteria and,in particular, to take on board circumstances thatled to breaks in service.

60. On 18 December 2001 the legal sectionsent a letter of instruction to counsel. Theysummarised the rules of the scheme regardingcontinuity for counsel. They concluded thatsummary with an example. A break from work onIcelandic water vessels of ten weeks during whicha trawlerman did ten weeks' work as a windowcleaner would not break continuity, whereas abreak of thirteen weeks during which atrawlerman did one day's work as a windowcleaner would break continuity. The originalproposal for what would constitute a break incontinuity was a period of eight weeks ratherthan twelve, regardless of what was done duringthe period. The BFA had argued that it was oftenthe case that men were away from Icelandicwater work for longer than eight weeks, for manylegitimate reasons. They had suggested that thereshould be a list of possible reasons for being awayfrom work and that breaks during which thosethings were done which were longer than eightweeks would not break continuity. It was felt thathaving a list of permitted reasons for breakswould be too difficult to administer and that itwould be too difficult to draw up acomprehensive list in advance, leaving scope formatters to be disputed later. Ministers thereforedecided to have only one activity, which if doneat all during a break of longer than twelve weeks,would break continuity. That activity was 'workother than work as an Icelandic watertrawlerman'. Doing anything else during a breakwould not break continuity provided there wasno 'other work' done during the break. The legalsection explained to counsel that they thoughtthere might be a risk of challenge to the decisionnot to count the prior service on Icelandic watervessels of someone who worked for more than

twelve weeks on other vessels at the direction oftheir employer, when the prior service ofsomeone who spent eight years in prison was notdiscounted and their time in prison was includedin the calculation of the period compensated for.That decision could be regarded as irrational. On20 December 2001 the legal section held atelephone conversation with counsel. Oncompensation payable to prisoners he agreedthat the position looked unattractive and that itthrew up a potential irrationality challenge.However, an applicant for judicial review wouldhave the problem of establishing locus standi tobring a challenge. No one was being deprived ofanything by the application of the rule it justresulted in more payments being made thanmight otherwise be the case. There was definitelyscope for a challenge, however, and if counselwere advising an applicant, it would be to make achallenge based on the overallunfairness/irrationality of the scheme which washighlighted by the contrast between prisonersand those who were sent by their employers towork on non Icelandic water vessels (a failure totreat like cases equally).

61. On 20 December 2001 a DTI official wroteto her counterpart at the Inland Revenue (theRevenue) (which now had responsibility for theadministration of National Insurancecontributions) concerning DTI's requirements forinformation about National Insurancecontributions for certain claimants under thecompensation scheme. She explained that themaximum payment would relate to a 20 yearperiod and explained the scheme rules oncontinuity of work and relevant breaks. They hada number of claimants with breaks of more thantwelve weeks but had no information aboutwhether or not they took any paid employmentduring that break. DTI knew the name, NationalInsurance number and the precise period forwhich they sought information and they required


detailed records of any National Insurancecontribution made or credited during thoseperiods. She confirmed that there might bearound 500 claimants for whom they soughtinformation.

62. On 14 January 2002 the Chairman of theHull BFA wrote to the Minister of State. He saidthe purpose of his letter was to express the greatconcern of the former trawlermen of Hull whowere experiencing real difficulty in the processingof their claims. One of the main reasons for thisdifficulty related to the lengths of a break inservice which took them over a twelve weekperiod. The result was that many men were onlyreceiving a fraction of the money genuinely dueto them. From the first meeting on 8 September2000 that the Hull BFA attended with policyofficials and representatives from RPS, the issuehad remained unresolved ever since. A policyofficial had confirmed that breaks of up totwelve weeks would be disregarded. That officialwas advised by the Chairman that there wouldinevitably be cases of more than twelve weeks.His response was that each case would be lookedat sympathetically. At no point, in the opinion ofthe Chairman, did he confirm that breaks inservice of over twelve weeks would automaticallybe discounted or would lead to a reduction inthe compensation due to trawlermen. He arguedthat it was reasonable to consider that atrawlerman who returned to shore for a period inexcess of twelve weeks after working on trawlersmay have had valid reasons for doing so. If thatwere the case then the breaks should be countedas continuous service. The Chairman recalled thatafter the 'Cod Wars', with the trawler fleet inrapid decline, there were more men than trawlersand hence longer onshore breaks where the menwere effectively unable to work but stillregistered as distant water trawlermen as theirrecords showed. He asked the Minister toreconsider the then current view held by RPS on

the question of breaks in service.

63. On 28 January 2002 the Revenue repliedto DTI's letter of 20 December 2001 concerningtheir request for information about NationalInsurance contributions that they had sought forsome time in order to assist with the verificationof claims on the scheme. The Revenue said theyhad explained when they met RPS representativesin March 2001 and a number of times since thenthat there was no statutory gateway between theRevenue and DTI for the purpose that DTI sought.The Revenue understood that the informationsought by DTI related to the years prior to 1975.Before 1975 the records were kept and still werein manual form. However, those records did nothold details of employers during the year unlessthe employer was part of the Graduated PensionsScheme and even then only as far back as 1961. Itwas impossible to say how the recordsmaintained met DTI's requests. The Revenue wasnot resourced to carry out work for otherdepartments so DTI would be expected to meetthe costs in full and confirm that in writing inadvance. If DTI decided to take their requestfurther, it would have to go before the Revenue'sApprovals Board and take its chance with all theother prospective new work.

64. On 11 March 2002, in discussing in an emaila problem that had arisen as to whether thereference in the scheme to 200 miles meantnautical or imperial miles, a policy officialrecognised that, legally, the scheme rules couldmean something other than what they intendedthem to mean. The rules had been put togetherin some haste and they were concerned at thetime that they should be as straightforward aspossible for operational staff to work with. On 12March 2002 the legal section commented uponthe 200 mile problem. They made the point thatif there had been a conscious policy decision thatthe scheme should refer to imperial rather thannautical miles then the legal section should have


been instructed in those terms. If policy officialswere not aware at the time of the distinctionbetween nautical and imperial miles, then thereality was that the scheme had been devised ona mistaken assumption - perhaps because of aninsufficient knowledge of the fishing industry ornot consulting the appropriate people.

65. On 20 March 2002 policy officials issuedrevised eligibility criteria and procedure formaking claims that superseded the version issuedon 2 October 2000 and reflected the changes tothe rules (see Annex A). The same day, a policyofficial provided some 'lines to take' for theSecretary of State for a meeting with theMember for Aberdeen Central scheduled for 13May 2002. The Member was likely to raise thepoint that trawlermen in Aberdeen worked the'pool system' which meant that they frequentlymoved between vessels and had less opportunityto build up continuous service on Icelandic watervessels. The line to take was that that type ofsystem was not unique to Aberdeen. Trawlermenin Grimsby and Fleetwood had similar workingpatterns. The reason why those in Aberdeen hadmore broken service in the Icelandic waterindustry was that there were fewer Icelandicwater vessels. The Member was also likely to raisethe point that trawlermen should not bepenalised for having worked on non-Icelandicwater vessels when, had they been in prison, theirservice would have been counted as continuous.The line to take was that if the trawlerman leftthe Icelandic water industry for a period oflonger than twelve weeks and during that periodhe did other work, he cannot be considered tohave remained dependent on the industry for hislivelihood during that period. If he subsequentlyreturned to the industry for a continuous periodof two years or longer then clearly he becamedependent upon it again and was entitled tocompensation based on that latter period. 'Otherwork' had to include work on vessels that never

went to Icelandic waters. Otherwise a claimantcould receive compensation for long periods ofinshore or other fishing work unrelated to theIcelandic water industry. If a trawlerman had abreak between voyages on Icelandic water vesselsbut did no other work, then he was considered tohave remained reliant on the industry throughoutregardless how long the break was and regardlesswhat he did during it. That allowed for the factthat there were many bona fide reasons whytrawlermen had long breaks between voyagesincluding unemployment, injury, illness,walkabout, training etc. That generous provisiondid mean that periods in prison could counttoward continuity - but only if the individualworked in the Icelandic water industry before hissentence and returned to it immediatelyafterwards having done no other work inbetween. The Member was likely to say thatperiods of service on Icelandic water vesselsshould be aggregated and breaks disregarded. Theline to take was that the Government could notagree to that. It would constitute a major changein the scheme rules and would add unacceptablyto its cost.

66. On 13 May 2002 a policy official sent abriefing note to the Secretary of State for hermeeting with the Member for Aberdeen Centralthat evening. The official recommended that theSecretary of State resisted any pressure from theMember to make further changes to the schemerules. He said that the Member was likely to raiseconcerns about the way in which the schemerules impacted on Aberdeen based trawlermenand would argue that those rules should bechanged or interpreted 'more flexibly' to reflecttheir 'special circumstances'. In each of the fourmain ports involved in Icelandic water trawling -Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen - theindustry had certain distinctive features. However,the scheme rules were designed to be as fair aspossible to all former trawlermen affected by the


settlement of the 'Cod Wars' in the 1970sirrespective of the port out of which they fished.It would have been neither practical nor desirableto have had different rules for different ports. Hetherefore recommended that the Secretary ofState stand by her earlier view that the changesmade the previous autumn should represent afinal settlement.

67. On 15 May 2002 a policy official emailedcolleagues concerning a telephone conversationshe had had that morning with the independentadjudicator, who informed her about a meetinghe had had with the Member for AberdeenCentral. The Member had told him that he wasnot asking the Secretary of State to change therules but to reinterpret them. The adjudicatortold him that the way in which he wanted toreinterpret the rules was not possible. TheMember replied that he was more or less awareof that but he had to try. The adjudicator hadalso warned that the port MPs were consideringan application for judicial review over the schemebecause it was flawed. Part of the case would bethat DTI had not taken the 'pool system' intoaccount. The policy official stated that, as hercolleagues knew, they were perfectly aware ofthe 'pool system' when they did the ex gratiaarrangements and so were fully aware of it for thescheme. She had thanked the adjudicator for thewarning and told him they had been warnedabout the possibility of judicial review previouslyand had sought legal advice on the matter. Thepurpose of her email was to advise that thematter had raised its head again. She said 'I havenot copied it to legal at this stage in case theystart worrying about it'.

68. On 10 June 2002 an official sent a briefingto the Minister of State in preparation for themeeting the Minister was to have later that daywith the port MPs. The briefing explained thatthe MPs would raise the issue of breaks in serviceand explained the meaning of 'relevant break'

under the scheme rules. The briefing said that ineffect that had meant that a small number offormer trawlermen who had many years'unbroken service on Icelandic water vesselsended up receiving a very small payment as theircontinuity was broken by fishing on invalidvessels. That same day the Minister of State metthe port MPs together with policy officials andRPS representatives. The Member forCleethorpes explained that some formertrawlermen had many years service on Icelandicwater vessels but their continuity had beenbroken towards the end of their career by someshort trips on non-valid vessels. That meant thatthey only received payment for a couple of years.That situation had been made worse by the factthat a number of former trawlermen had beenpaid who never went to Iceland at all. TheMinister explained that there were no 'fishingpassports' and that was why the scheme had hadto rely on the vessels on which people had sailed.In addition, Treasury costings were done on theassumption that breaks of over twelve weekswould break continuity. The Member for HullWest and Hessle replied that former trawlermenwere sent to such places as Lowestoft to fish bythe former Employment Department otherwisethey would have lost their unemploymentbenefit. He emphasised that that would notrequire any rule changes, which the MPs realisedwould be difficult, but an extension of the listthat already existed of allowable reasons for abreak in continuity. The Member for AberdeenCentral said that paragraph 3.2 of the schemerules made things difficult. He confirmed thattrawlermen had no control over where they wentto fish and unemployment benefit would havebeen lost if they had not complied. As a lawyer,he was concerned with equity - payments hadbeen made to people who had had long breaksaway from the industry (such as prison) and thatwas unfair. He considered that the rules shouldbe subject to a judicial review as they had not


been brought in by way of Statutory Instrument.However, he considered that an addition could bemade to the 'exemptions' in the rules wherebypeople with many years' service on Icelandicwater vessels could have their invalid servicecounted. A policy official explained there wereno such exemptions in the rules. The only thingthat broke continuity was 'work other than as anIcelandic water trawlerman' and that includedfishing on non-Icelandic water vessels. TheMinister confirmed that to discount invalidservice in the way suggested would need achange in the rules and the Secretary of Statehad made clear she was not prepared to makeany more changes. The Member for AberdeenCentral replied that he did not think that it waspossible to stop legal action as the scheme wasnot being targeted at those who were meant toreceive payments and that the scheme would beopen to ridicule if that ever got into the papers.The Member for Hull West and Hessle did notwant to open the floodgates; they just wantedthose few cases to be looked at again.

69. On 21 June 2002 officials from theMinister of State's office emailed policy officialsconcerning a letter from the referring Member tothe Minister that related to Mrs A and required areply. He had sent the Minister a copy of hisletter to the adjudicator of 17 June 2002concerning the decision to reject Mrs A's appealagainst the award made to her. He pointed out inthat letter that the Icelandic water vessel onwhich Mr A had sailed in 1972 required a refit thatlasted more than twelve weeks and Mr A hadnever ceased or had any intention to cease hisemployment as an Icelandic water trawlerman. Hehad had no choice but to accept whatever vesselwas offered to him during the period of his ownship's refit and thus remained an Icelandic watertrawlerman during that period. His service as anIcelandic water trawlerman was not breached bythe fact of the vessel's refit and the benefit

regulations at that time meant that he had totake whatever vessel he was given during theperiod of the refit. The referring Membertherefore viewed it as incorrect to interpret theperiod of the refit of Mr A's ship as a break inservice under the regulations, as well as beingmanifestly unjust. On 26 June 2002 theadjudicator replied to the referring Memberconcerning Mrs A's appeal. He said that while heunderstood that Mr A had taken the break fromIcelandic water work in 1972 'for perfectlyunderstandable reasons' that break constituted a'relevant break' under the rules of the scheme. Hewas in no doubt whatsoever that DTI's decision inthe case was correct in accordance with the rulesof the scheme. On 10 July 2002 the Minister ofState replied to the referring Member. He said hehad noted the content of the letter to theadjudicator but it was up to the adjudicator tomake a final decision on the claim havingconsidered all the information at his disposal.

70. On 22 August 2002 a policy officialemailed a colleague in Scotland and said thatthey had discussed the fact that the Aberdeentrawlermen and their representatives had beenlobbying Scottish Ministers about the Aberdeen'pool system' and the fact that fewer formerIcelandic water trawlermen from Aberdeen hadqualified for payments. By way of background,the official sent excerpts from letters sent by thethen Minister of State to a number of ScottishMPs. She advised that the Member for AberdeenCentral had always attended the meetings withMinisters in London to discuss the progress ofthe scheme and represented the trawlermen ofAberdeen and they were always aware of the'pool system' when the scheme rules were firstdrawn up. One excerpt from one of the Minister'sletters said the following. 'You may be assuredthat I am fully aware of the nature of theAberdeen "pool system". This type of system wasnot unique to Aberdeen. A similar system


operated in Grimsby and, to a lesser degree inHull. The fact that fewer vessels went to Icelandicwaters from Aberdeen means that it is more of aproblem for former Aberdeen trawlermen.However, by the same token, they were also lessdirectly affected by the closure of Icelandicwaters as a result of the settlement of the "CodWars"'.

71. On 27 November 2002, followingconsideration of the issue of whether, under thescheme rules, trawlermen who had a longer thantwelve week break from fishing in Icelandicwaters and during it were requested by theiremployer to make voyages from non-UK portsamounted to 'other work', particularly in the lightof then recent comments from the scheme'sindependent adjudicator and concerns of policyofficials, DTI's legal section emailed policyofficials and said their view was that it would bedifficult to persuade a court that theadjudicator's view on the issue was wrong. Theytherefore considered that they should concedethat a voyage which did not start and end in theUK need not count as 'other work' as it then did.On 2 December 2002 the Minister of State metwith the port MPs together with policy officialsand representatives from RPS. The MPs raised thequestion of the inclusion of vessels on the listand also breaks in service. The referring Membersuggested that policy officials could take intoaccount the reason for taking work outside theindustry (such as if his wife was seriously ill).Officials suggested that that would be open tochallenge for not using discretion in other casesthat people considered to be just as valid and itwould be very difficult to 'hold the line'. They hadto apply the rules of the scheme strictly andfairly. The Minister agreed to write to theMember for Aberdeen Central and explain howbreaks in service were calculated and whatcircumstances broke continuity of service.

72. On 24 January 2003 the referring Member

wrote to the Minister of State. He said that thebreak in service rule was being unreasonablyinterpreted as not only a break from fishing (apartfrom being sent to prison) but also as work in theNorth Sea. Such breaks were more common onthe Grimsby side of the Humber because thatport had more alternative forms of fishing whichmen were required to pursue (by the dock office,and the eligibility rules for unemploymentbenefit, as well as by the owners' own rules) if noIcelandic trips were available, but also forqualifications such as Mates' and Skippers' ticketssince some owners, such as Ross, required thatthose taking tickets should work for a specifiedtime in the North Sea to gain experience beforebeing put back into Icelandic fishing. In Hull, withno alternatives, if someone left fishing that was aclean break and they therefore qualified forcompensation. In Grimsby, particularly as theindustry ran down, there were alternatives andthose were then being wrongly interpreted asbreaks in service. Hence compensation paymentsto Grimsby trawlermen were often less,particularly if they qualified for two yearsbetween 1972 and 1979 but were cut off becauseof a break from long previous service. The resultwas a perceived injustice which had caused a lotof bad feeling south of the Humber and neededto be put right. The Minister had indicated hewould bear the Grimsby complaints in mind in hisclosing decisions on the scheme and the referringMember thought that he must do so. That meantnot treating North Sea work as a break in service.

DTI's response to the complaint

73. Where I decide to conduct aninvestigation into a complaint referred to me, theprovisions of section 7(1) of the 1967 Act requireme to afford the principal officer of the


department or authority concerned anopportunity to comment on any allegationscontained in the complaint. In response to thestatement of complaint in Mrs A's case DTI saidthat the scheme rules had made clear thatcompensation was only payable for the llastperiod of continuous employment on Icelandicwater vessels that lasted for two years or moreand that ended after 1 January 1974. Any break ofmore than twelve weeks away from fishing inIcelandic waters broke continuity if other workwas done during the break. DTI said theindependent adjudicator had rejected Mrs A'sappeal on 18 May 2002. The adjudicator hadaccepted that DTI was right to pay Mrs A only forthe period after 19 May 1972. In his letter to MrsA, the adjudicator explained that the reason whyMr A fished on the Saxon Forward (a non-validvessel) was quite understandable but, under therules of the scheme, it constituted a 'relevantbreak'. The decision of the adjudicator was final.DTI did not believe that the only reason why MrA fished on the Saxon Forward (a non-validvessel) was that he was left with no alternative bythe Unemployment Benefit Office, while waitingfor a vessel to be refitted. It appeared there wereother factors. They referred to a letter from MrsA's representative of 26 April 2002, in which hestated that Mr A had stayed at home at therelevant time in 1972 to look after his wife, whowas in poor health. They also referred to a letterfrom Mrs A to the adjudicator of 26 February2002, in which she stated that her husband fishedon the North Sea at that time in 1972 on theadvice of a doctor because of her health.

74. DTI explained that the purpose of thetwelve week rule was that the scheme shouldonly compensate those who earned their livingalmost exclusively from Icelandic water fishing -people who had been doing other work had notsuffered such a serious loss of employment. If aformer trawlerman was sick, unemployed,

suspended, sitting for a mate's ticket or waitingfor a refit, it did not break continuity. The onlything that broke continuity in a between-voyagegap of more than twelve weeks was 'work otherthan as an Icelandic water trawlerman'. It wasalmost inevitably the case that, wherever a linewas drawn, whether it was a cut-off date or someother qualifying condition, someone would falljust the wrong side of it. DTI had taken the viewthat it was necessary to set limits in that way,otherwise they would have had to decidebetween cases involving all kinds of 'personal'issues and that is what would have made thescheme almost impossible to administer.

75. DTI subsequently told me that officialsbelieved that they had understood the 'poolsystem' and the nature of the distant waterindustry when devising the scheme. One officialinvolved in the scheme had worked on theprevious ex gratia scheme 1993-95, and in settingup that scheme officials had consulted the SeaFishing Authority and some trawler owners. WhileDTI accepted that, with hindsight, the design andlaunch of the compensation scheme in October2000 had not been to the standard expected,officials had researched MAFF and Hansardextracts and a book on the trawling industrywhen considering various options for the scheme.Although they acknowledged that they had failedto fully review the scheme when problems arose,they had addressed those problems, albeitincrementally, and had then reassessed claimsalready paid. They said that they believed theyhad fully recognised the complexity of thedistant water industry and had made the schemeas flexible as they could, and that at the timethey could not have done any better. As toNational Insurance records, while they agreedthat they had not approached the Revenue aboutsuch records until over a year after the schemewas launched, they said that there had not beenany difficulty previously in obtaining that


information for the 1993-95 ex gratia scheme (as aresult of which they did hold National Insuranceinformation on some trawlermen), and so theycould not have foreseen that there was nogateway with the Revenue for that informationwhen the scheme was devised.

Findings

76. Having set out above and in the Annexesto this report the evidence disclosed by myinvestigation, I now turn to consider whether thatevidence suggests that Mrs A has sustainedinjustice in consequence of any maladministrationin the actions or inaction of those responsible fordevising and operating the ex gratiacompensation scheme.

77. In order to determine this, I will considerthree questions: first, whether maladministrationoccurred; secondly, what, if so, were theconsequences of any such maladministration;and, thirdly, whether Mrs A has suffered aninjustice as a result which has not been remedied.

78. Before doing so, I will set out theapproach that I have used to ascertain whetherthe actions or inaction of DTI in relation to thescheme constituted maladministration. Thisapproach is one that I would use whenconsidering complaints about any ex gratiacompensation scheme similar to the one thatforms the subject of Mrs A's complaint.

My approach to maladministration in this context79. I consider that, in order for any ex gratiacompensation scheme both to accord withprinciples of good administration and to have areasonable prospect of being run effectively, anumber of conditions need to be satisfied.

80. These conditions relate to the policy

intention behind the scheme; the rules andsystems that are devised to govern the operationof the scheme in the light of that intention; theway in which the scheme is administered; andwhether the scheme is monitored to ensure thatit is able to continue to meet its objectives onceit becomes operational.

81. In detail, the conditions that I wouldexpect to be satisfied are:

(i) that those responsible for ssetting tthepolicy iintention behind the scheme - that is,what the scheme is meant to recognise and how,broadly, that is to be achieved - should formulate,articulate and, where appropriate, announce thatintention clearly, setting defined objectives thatare not ambiguous and which are workable andcan reasonably be delivered by those who willtake forward the work to devise the detailedrules and systems of the scheme;

(ii) that those responsible for ddevising tthedetailed sscheme rrules should have sufficientknowledge of the background to the sector andthe events, issue or problem that the scheme isintended to recognise or address, to enable themto devise eligibility rules and the systems tosupport the scheme that are fit for purpose. Thatis, allowing sufficient time where necessary:

• to research the context to establish allthe factual considerations that are relevant to thesubject matter of the scheme and which mayneed to be reflected in the detailed eligibilitycriteria - to ensure that, where the subject matteris complex, such complexity is recognised withinthe scheme rules by a degree of flexibility whichenables those operating the scheme to deal withunusual or unanticipated cases fairly andappropriately;

• to consult those with particular expertiseabout that subject matter where such knowledgeis not readily available within the relevant


Department or agency - including, where possibleand appropriate, seeking the views of thoserepresenting the people who may be mostdirectly affected by the scheme;

• to seek advice from whatever source isappropriate - be it from legal or otherprofessional advisers, from other Departments oragencies which have operated similar schemes, orfrom external consultants with relevantexperience - as to the practical issues that mayarise in the operation of the scheme as it isenvisaged, before finalising draft scheme rules;and

• to pilot the scheme, where possible, toenable those who will administer claims underthe scheme to receive proper training and toallow those who will manage the operation of thescheme to identify any potential systemicproblems, before the scheme becomes fullyoperational - thus limiting the scope for any suchproblems to impact adversely on those who are(potentially) covered by the scheme;

(iii) that those responsible for ooperating ttheadministrative ssystems, ppolicies aand otheriinfrastructure oof tthe sscheme, once it is inoperation, should fully understand the rules ofthe scheme, making informed and properlyrecorded decisions on each case - and shouldapply the rules consistently and fairly havingregard to the relevant circumstances of eachapplicant;

(iv) that those administering and managingthe scheme should put in place systems to enablethem to undertake eeffective mmonitoring oof ttheoperation oof tthe sscheme. Where they find thatthe rules and systems that are being operated areineffective, unworkable or unfair, prompt actionshould be taken to review the scheme and torectify any problems that are identified - whileensuring that such action does not unfairly affectthose whose cases have already been decided.

82. Having regard to the above fourconditions, I would expect an effective schemeto have scheme rules that are clearly articulatedand which directly reflect the policy intentionbehind the scheme, to have systems andprocedures in place to deliver the scheme whichhave been properly planned and tested, to havebuilt in sufficient flexibility in rules andprocedures to recognise the level of complexityin the subject matter covered by the scheme, andto have mechanisms which enable the success ofthe scheme in delivering its objectives to be keptunder review.

83. Any scheme which does not meet thesecriteria will not have been designed or operatedin accordance with principles of goodadministration.

84. However, that does not mean that itnecessarily follows that I will uphold anycomplaint from an applicant to such a schemewho is dissatisfied with the result of theirapplication.

85. When considering whethermaladministration has occurred, I will always haveregard to the circumstances relevant to each case.I will consider the extent to which the actiontaken in the particular situation departs fromprinciples of good administration - and whethersuch a departure is reasonable in all the relevantcircumstances. I will also consider the nature ofany deficiencies in the design and operation of ascheme - and also consider the effects of thosedeficiencies on the person making the complaint.I then have to consider whether those effectsconstitute an unremedied injustice to thatindividual which should be put right.

86. Having set out my general approach todetermining whether maladministration occurredin relation to complaints about ex gratiacompensation schemes, I now turn to makefindings in relation to Mrs A's specific complaint -


and those similar complaints identified in AnnexC to this report.

Did what happen constitute maladministration?87. I will now turn to determine whether thatevidence discloses maladministration. I will makefour findings. Two of these relate to thedevelopment of the scheme - that is, the genesisof the scheme and whether the resultingeligibility criteria were fit for purpose. A furthertwo relate to the operation of the scheme - thatis, how claims were assessed and whether theability of the scheme to deliver its objectives wasproperly monitored.

The genesis of the scheme88. It is clear that the events which the exgratia compensation scheme were intended torecognise and the financial losses for which it wasto compensate occurred during the 1970s and1980s (paragraph 10). This may seem obvious andhardly a matter of special note to the reader ofthis report.

89. However, this - coupled with the fact thatthe policy decision to establish the scheme wasat least in part a response to a campaign for whatwas seen as adequate compensation that hadoriginated in the early 1980s (paragraph 10) -meant that, in this case, it was not necessary towork up detailed scheme rules and supportingprocesses quickly or without properconsideration of all the relevant factors thatmight have borne on the delivery of an effectivescheme.

90. I recognise that, in some cases,government departments or agencies have todeliver ex gratia compensation schemes veryspeedily in order to deal with emergencies orunforeseen circumstances. However, this was noemergency.

91. Indeed, my first finding is that the schemewas devised and launched before it was

appropriate to do so. Given the complexity ofthe industry to which it related, the time elapsedsince the relevant events had occurred, and thelack of direct knowledge of the subject matteron the part of those responsible for the scheme,what happened did not accord with theprinciples of good administration that I haveoutlined above - and was so far short of what wasappropriate in the circumstances that thisconstituted maladministration.

92. The first submission to Ministersrecommending the setting up of a scheme inresponse to the campaign for compensation wasmade on 18 October 1999 (paragraph 24). It hadbeen agreed on 28 February 2000 to establish asmall inter departmental group to conduct ascoping exercise and to explore the feasibilityand design of a scheme. This group was requiredto report to Ministers within two months(paragraph 25).

93. Following the work of this group,agreement in principle to the establishment of anex gratia scheme had been given by the ChiefSecretary to the Treasury on 22 June 2000(paragraph 28). The intention to establish thescheme was announced by way of a writtenParliamentary answer on 28 July 2000 (paragraph31). The scheme was launched on 2 October 2000and had a deadline for admitting claims of 31December 2002 (paragraph 28).

94. Thus, the scheme was developed in theapproximately 12 month period between 18October 1999 and 2 October 2000. That may not,at first sight, appear to be an unreasonabletimescale for such a project.

95. However, it is not the timescale withinwhich the scheme was developed itself that Icriticise. Rather, I am concerned that the schemewas devised without full appreciation of thenature of the industry, of the differing workingpractices in each of the affected ports, and of


the detailed provisions of the 'pool system'(paragraphs 12 and 13) - and how these factorsmight affect individual claims.

96. Furthermore, I am also concerned that thescheme was launched in this context in spite ofwarnings - from those who had a more detailedunderstanding of these matters - that thescheme as it was proposed was not fit forpurpose.

97. This came to be accepted by officialsonce the scheme had been launched. As noted inparagraph 45 of this report, officials hadrecognised in February 2001 - four months intothe operation of the scheme - that some of theproblems that had been encountered were anecessary consequence of the haste with whichthe scheme had been developed.

98. The note of the meeting referred to inthat paragraph stated:

'… the Scheme was set up in a hurry, at theinsistence of Ministers, and… we were still havingdiscussions with the BFA right up until the daysbefore the Scheme opened. We also know moreabout the trawler industry than we did at thebeginning and this is why some of theseproblems have arisen.'

99. It might equally have been noted that,during the 'discussions' with the BFA immediatelybefore the launch of the scheme, the BFA hadbeen warning officials that the scheme would notdeliver its policy objective.

100. I note the assertion made by an official inMarch 2001 (paragraph 46) that, when the schemehad been devised, Ministers and officials hadtaken careful account of advice and informationfrom a wide range of different sources, includingexperienced and qualified marine personnel.

101. However, I have seen no evidence thatwould support such an assertion. While there had

been some informal telephone conversationsbetween officials and the office-bearers of theHull BFA prior to August 2000 (paragraph 32),officials had only met representatives of the BFAsome three weeks before the scheme had beenlaunched. That appears from the evidence I haveseen to be the extent of consultation with thosewith direct knowledge and experience of therelevant industry.

102. The scheme was launched before theresolution of all the outstanding issues that werethen known to relevant officials to constitutepotential problems. Such problems included:

(i) the difficulty of distinguishing betweenthose individuals who had lost their job as aresult of the agreement with Iceland and thosewho had lost their job for other reasons, whichhad been identified in a paper attached to theDTI submission of October 1999 (paragraph 24).This became an ongoing issue during theoperation of the scheme;

(ii) the difficulty of obtaining confirmation ofindividual eligibility, a potential solution for which- the interrogation of National Insurancecontribution records - had been suggested byTreasury officials in May 2000 (paragraph 27).However, DTI did not make a formal approachabout obtaining access to those records untilmore than one year after the scheme had beenlaunched (in December 2001 - paragraph 61). Itwas established in January 2002 that DTI couldnot obtain that information easily (paragraph 63),with the result that officials were not able tosatisfactorily verify complex claims; and

(iii) the difficulty of identifying which vesselshad trawled in Icelandic waters. A paper attachedto the DTI submission of 9 May 2000 (paragraph27) set out three options for eligibility under ascheme and suggested that payments could berestricted to those former trawlermen who hadworked for vessel owners known to have trawled


in Icelandic waters - although in practice, mostvessel owners were likely to have had interests inmost distant water fishing operations. However,by 16 January 2001 (paragraph 44) officials wereconceding that it had been very difficult to findout which ships sailed to Iceland and also pointedout that according to maps, parts of the FaroeIslands' territorial waters were actually within 200miles of Iceland, so that those who fished theFaroes might also be eligible for the scheme.

103. Equally, several critical issues were neverconsidered by those responsible for devising theeligibility rules before the launch of the scheme.

104. For example, in March 2002 the issuearose as to the interpretation of the schemecriterion above, which depended on the claimanthaving trawled within '200 miles' of Iceland - andspecifically whether that reference was intendedto have been to imperial or nautical miles(paragraph 64). I would concur with DTI's legaladviser, who commented at the time that thiswas a relevant consideration which appeared tohave been ignored - perhaps because of a lack ofawareness of the industry, a failure to properlyconsult those with direct knowledge andexperience, or the haste with which the schemehad been devised.

105. Another example is the failure prior toJanuary 2001 to consider the position oftrawlermen who had gaps of longer than twelveweeks between voyages because they had beenin prison and to consider whether that countedas 'other work' that broke continuity (paragraph44). That discussion, once it had begun threemonths into the operation of the scheme, was tocontinue throughout its life.

106. In summary, as events unfolded after thelaunch of the scheme it became clear that theeligibility criteria had been devised and thescheme launched before several critical factorshad been properly considered and addressed by

those responsible for devising the scheme rules.It is to the adequacy of those rules that I nowturn.

The scheme rules107. My second finding is that the schemeeligibility criteria that were devised did notproperly reflect the policy intention behind thescheme. This mismatch

- between what the scheme was supposed todeliver and the design of the mechanism toachieve this intention - did not accord with theprinciples of good administration that I haveoutlined above. It was so far short of what isacceptable in the circumstances that thisconstitutes maladministration.

108. The policy intention underlying thedecision to establish the scheme was, in thewords of the original scheme rules, 'tocompensate former UK-based Icelandic watertrawlermen for the loss of their industry due tothe settlement of the "Cod Wars" of the mid1970s'.

109. A letter sent by the relevant Minister inJuly 2000 (Annex B) to MPs with a constituencyinterest in the scheme - in which the decision inprinciple that a scheme should be establishedwas announced, to coincide with the writtenParliamentary answer referred to above -reinforced this, and stated that:

'… former Icelandic water fishermen who losttheir jobs when the industry collapsed followingthe settlement of the "Cod Wars" of the mid-1970s are to receive Government compensation.This is because the Government recognises thatthe former Icelandic water fishermen suffered aninjustice when many of them lost their jobsthrough no fault of their own and received littleor no help.'


110. The letter went on to set out 'certainstrict criteria' for the scheme, which providedthat:

• payment would be restricted to those'who left the industry between 1974 and 1979 andhad two years' continuous service in the industry,but not necessarily with the same employer';

• payment would be made 'on the basis of£1,000 for each year at sea with a maximumentitlement of £20,000';

• surviving dependents would also beentitled to claim where eligible former fishermenwere deceased; and

• 'sums received under ex gratiaredundancy payments arrangements operated bythe Government between 1993 and 1995 [would]be offset against payments under the newscheme'.

111. As my report sets out in some detail, bothabove and in Annex B, such an intention - tocompensate former UK-based Icelandic watertrawlermen for the loss of their industry due tothe settlement of the 'Cod Wars' of the mid 1970s

- was not delivered by the scheme. I consider thatthis was in no small part down to the nature ofthe rules that were devised prior to the launchof the scheme.

112. The rules for the scheme lacked cleardefinitions. Officials struggled to determine ineach case whether the claimant had worked as an'Icelandic water trawlerman', what was the extentof 'Icelandic waters', and even whether the '200mile' limit had been expressed in nautical orimperial miles when the scheme rules had beendevised.

113. There were also differing interpretationsof the rules throughout the life of the scheme asto the work that attracted compensation andwork which did not. On 16 January 2001, work in

dry dock had represented a valid claim (paragraph44). By 23 April 2001, it did not count as work asan Icelandic water trawlerman (paragraph 48).

114. Moreover, officials had no procedure forverifying difficult claims where fishing recordswere unavailable once it became clear, rather latein the day, that access to National Insurancecontribution records could not be obtainedwithout further time and cost. This had theeffect of making the scheme virtuallyunworkable.

115. There was also no flexibility in the schemerules - unclear as they were - to recognise thecomplexity of the industry and the individualcircumstances of those potentially covered bythe scheme. There was no provision for deservingor unanticipated cases. This left no room forcommon sense or compassion.

116. Furthermore, it appears that a desire onthe part of DTI for simplicity in the rules of thescheme to assist officials to operate itoutweighed recognition of the complexity of thedistant water industry. This put the operationalneeds of DTI ahead of ensuring that the schemedelivered the policy intention behind it - and theexpectations of those covered by it. Examples ofthis approach include:

(i) the belief expressed in December 2001that having a list of permitted reasons for breaksas suggested by the BFA, who had provided a listof criteria that reflected common situationswithin the industry, would be too difficult toadminister (paragraph 60);

(ii) the recognition by an official in March2002 that the rules had been put together insome haste due to a concern that they should beas straightforward as possible for operationalstaff to work with (paragraph 64); and

(iii) the rejection in June 2002 (paragraph 68)and December 2002 (paragraph 71) of


amendments to the scheme rules suggested byMPs. These aimed to recognise real instances ofindividuals who had been denied payment due tothe inflexible nature of the scheme rules, butwho would reasonably have expected to comewithin the scope of the scheme if it had beenoperated in line with the policy intention said tolie behind it. Officials said that this would havebeen open to challenge and it would be verydifficult for them to 'hold the line' against othersuggested improvements.

117. What I have described above - the lack ofclear definitions in the scheme rules, theinconsistency of interpretation afforded in somecases, the inability of those operating the schemeto verify the entitlement of some applicants, thelack of flexibility in the eligibility criteria, and adesire to achieve simplicity for those operatingthe scheme at the expense, howeverunintentional, of a full and fair consideration ofthe applications of all those who had worked insuch a complex industry - would all becomecontributory factors in ensuring that the schemewould not operate effectively.

118. It seems to me that all this was a directconsequence of the failings I have alreadyidentified above. Had the launch of the schemebeen delayed until all issues had been properlyconsidered and until the eligibility criteriaproposed by DTI had been properly discussedwith those with greater knowledge of theindustry, things would have been very different.

119. The scheme appeared to be set up to fail:not with any deliberate intent, but by failure tohave proper regard to the policy behind thescheme and to recognise and provide for thecomplexity of the general industry and thespecific individual circumstances to which thescheme related.

120. I now turn to examine how the schemehandled applications.

Assessing claims under the scheme121. While I am clear, for the reasons I havealready given, that the scheme failed to delivercompensation - or sufficient compensation - toall those who it had been intended shouldreceive such compensation, I have seen noevidence that the scheme did not operate withinthe rules that were set for it. Nor have I seenanything to suggest that the delivery of thescheme failed to meet appropriate customerservice standards, although I am aware of theconcerns which were expressed at the outset ofthe scheme that payments should be madequicker than was the case at that time.

122. My third finding is therefore that, whilethe scheme could not deliver the policy intentionthat underlay it, there is no basis on which I canfind that officials who administered the schemeprovided a service which fell so far short of thestandard that the applicants could reasonablyexpect that it constituted maladministration.

123. There were clearly problems inadministering the scheme, but those were notrelated to the service provided by the relevantofficials considering individual applications. Imake no criticism of those who operated thescheme on a daily basis or those who, like theadjudicator, had to work within the rules of thescheme as they had been determined.

124. I now turn to the problems that wereidentified - and to assess how DTI dealt withevidence of the difficulties in delivering theintention of the scheme due to its design, whicharose during the operation of the scheme.

Monitoring the effectiveness of the scheme125. My fourth finding is that DTI responded ina wholly unsatisfactory manner when problemswere identified during the operation of thescheme.

126. Within a few weeks of its launch, officials


had identified difficulties with the scheme and itsdesign (paragraph 42). When officials and RPSstaff met in January 2001 (paragraph 44), theyspoke of increasing problems with the scheme -and, by February 2001 (paragraph 45), wereprepared to advise Ministers of a possibleoverspend.

127. By April 2001 officials had expressedconcerns about the definition of an Icelandicwater trawlerman (paragraph 47) and theirattempt at redrafting operational rules for thescheme had revealed further difficulties, forexample in relation to the position of those whohad served a term of imprisonment during abetween-voyage gap of longer than twelve weeks(paragraph 48).

128. What I find striking is the failure by DTI tofully review the scheme in the face of suchincreasing problems.

129. Officials recognised in June 2001, whenthey briefed the then new Secretary and Ministerof State (paragraphs 49 and 50), that there hadbeen concerns about the scheme in the portsaffected as well as among the port MPs. However,it appears that those officials failed to grasp thesignificance of those concerns.

130. It was left to the Secretary of State, whoseemingly heard about the scheme's problems ather meeting with the port MPs on 18 July 2001(paragraph 51), to note the gulf between theexpectations prompted by the policy intentionunderlying the scheme and the scheme rules asthey had been designed - and to call for ananalysis of how the scheme rules impacted onthe various groups of trawlermen covered by thescheme.

131. The Secretary of State then requestedsuggestions from her officials as to how theycould move forward - and required counsel'sadvice on the risks of legal challenge to the

scheme by way of judicial review (paragraph 52).Officials then had the benefit of discussing theissues with counsel in conference (paragraphs 54and 55).

132. Yet, even then, DTI officials appeared notto understand how the industry worked inpractice and the complexities of the individualcircumstances of those affected by the 'poolsystem', which often meant that trawlermen hadto undertake specified jobs or risk losing socialsecurity benefits. That was so despite the 'poolsystem' being one in which public bodies hadparticipated. None of this was raised withcounsel, which was a missed opportunity toaddress all of the ineffectiveness and unfairnessof the scheme.

133. The initial advice provided by counsel, inthe words of the notes of the first conferenceheld with DTI officials, was that the scheme wasopen to challenge for a number of reasons,including that:

'…the scheme cannot have been intended to havethe arbitrary and unfair effect of compensatingthose who continued to obtain lucrative work inthe fishing industry, but not compensating thosewho worked slightly longer in the dyingindustry… .'

134. The notes continue to summarise theadvice of counsel as being that while there were'good points' in support of the DTI's position, itwas considered 'that a judicial review would havea real prospect of success, despite the fact thatwe have a respectable case'.

135. Given the knowledge that officials nowhad that the scheme had been deficientlydesigned, that it was having unintendedconsequences, and that there were ongoingproblems in defining key terms and in verifyingcomplex applications, it seems to me that, quiteaside from seeking legal advice on the prospect


of challenge to the scheme, it would have beenappropriate for those commissioning such adviceto have also sought to fully understand thecauses of the deficiencies in the scheme and toseek to develop solutions to those deficiencies.Only a comprehensive review of the schemewould have achieved that.

136. The failure to review the scheme and toensure that it effectively delivered the policyintention of providing compensation to thosewho had suffered injustice as a result of losingtheir livelihood due to the settlement of the'Cod Wars' was so far from what was reasonablein the circumstances that it constitutedmaladministration.

Summary of findings

137. I have made three findings ofmaladministration. These are:

(i) that the scheme was devised andlaunched before it was appropriate to do so, withthe effect that several critical factors were notconsidered and addressed by those responsiblefor devising the scheme rules before its launch;

(ii) that there was a mismatch between whatthe scheme was intended to deliver and what itwas capable of delivering through the schemerules. The rules lacked clear definitions;inconsistent interpretations were possible inrespect of several key factors; those operatingthe scheme were unable to verify theentitlement of some applicants; there was noflexibility within the eligibility criteria; andadministrative simplicity superseded alignmentwith delivering the policy intention; and

(iii) that the problems identified during theoperation of the scheme which were added to

incrementally should have led to acomprehensive review of the scheme with theaim of realigning the detailed scheme eligibilityrules with the policy intention behind thescheme. This did not happen.

138. I now turn to determine what theconsequences of this maladministration were forMrs A and whether she has sustained anunremedied injustice as a result.

What were the consequences for Mrs A?139. In her complaint to me Mrs A claimed tohave sustained injustice in the form ofinsufficient compensation under the scheme.That is, that the sum awarded to her - followingher application to the compensation scheme onbehalf of her late husband - reflected paymentfor only seven years' service. This had occurredbecause she had been unable to establish thecontinuity of his twenty years' service under thescheme's eligibility criteria, as the requirements ofthe 'pool system' had left him with no alternativebut to take work which was classified as notbeing valid for the definition of the continuousperiod of work under the scheme rules.

140. The maladministration that Mrs A allegedhad led to her suffering this injustice was thefailure on the part of DTI to make provision forthe effects of the 'pool system' when designingthe eligibility criteria for the scheme. She alsocomplained that, given that the scheme wouldhave to deal with claims going back forty years,there had been a failure to make provision withinthe scheme to consider cases where there weredeserving or unanticipated circumstancesrelevant to an individual applicant.

141. As a result, the remedy she seeks iscompensation that fully reflects her latehusband's service of more than twenty years onIcelandic water vessels.

142. I have found that the scheme was


launched before proper consideration had beengiven to the complex context that the schemewas intended to reflect and to the widely varyingindividual circumstances of those whose loss ofpotential earnings the scheme was meant tocompensate.

143. I have also found that the eligibilitycriteria for the scheme were unclear, capable ofdiffering interpretations, and inflexible. Thatcompounded the lack of full and developedunderstanding of the relevant issues thatunderpinned the way in which the scheme hadbeen developed.

144. The scheme was, therefore, ineffective inthat it failed to deliver compensation to all thosewhom it was intended to compensate.

145. Mr A had had a career of over twentyyears as a deep-sea fisherman and appeared tobe exactly the type of trawlerman at whom thecompensation scheme had been aimed.

146. Mr A had been required to work for ashort period of time on a non qualifying vessel orotherwise lose his social security benefits. Theway in which the scheme rules failed to recognisethe full effects of the 'pool system' meant thatMrs A received significantly reducedcompensation because of this technicality - onethat would have been identified by anyone with adeveloped understanding of the 'pool system',the potentially unfair effects of which shouldhave been considered as part of devising thescheme rules.

147. I consider that Mrs A could havereasonably expected to receive compensation forher husband's 20 years' service rather than thecompensation award for seven years that she didreceive. But was the failure to deliver thisreasonable expectation a consequence of themaladministration I have identified in this report?

An unremedied injustice?148. I consider that it was and I thereforeuphold Mrs A's complaint that she has sufferedan unremedied injustice in consequence ofmaladministration.

149. Mrs A's application was considered withina scheme whose eligibility rules were inconsistentwith the policy objective that they were intendedto deliver. Those rules had been devised in theabsence of a fully developed understanding ofthe industry in which those who were eligible toclaim compensation had worked.

150. Had the scheme been devised andintroduced without the maladministration I haveidentified in this report, it would have beencapable of recognising the effects of the 'poolsystem' on qualifying periods of employment -such as requirements made, as was made in MrA's case, that an individual must take on a specificjob or lose social security benefits - and it wouldhave been capable of dealing with exceptional orunanticipated circumstances.

151. That it was not capable of either of thesethings led directly to an injustice to Mrs A.

152. Had the problems identified by DTI duringits operation led to a review of the scheme, witha view to remedying the design deficiencies inthe eligibility criteria and to the introduction ofan element of flexibility or discretion into thescheme rules, Mrs A's case may have met morefavourable consideration by those dealing withher application.

153. That this did not happen led directly tofurther inconvenience and distress to her.


Recommendations

154. I now turn to make recommendations toput right the unremedied injustice I haveidentified above. Having found that the way inwhich the scheme was devised and operated byDTI constituted maladministration causinginjustice to Mrs A and others, I considered whatrecommendations I should make to DTI in orderto remedy that injustice.

155. In doing so, I should emphasise that,where I find maladministration on the part of abody within my jurisdiction that causes anindividual or individuals injustice that has notbeen remedied, my general approach is to seek tohave that body put those caused injustice backinto the position they would have been in, hadthe maladministration I have identified notoccurred.

156. Where that is not possible, I look to otherways to remedy the injustice I have identified, forexample, through the payment of compensationor by making changes to policies and procedures.This will depend on the circumstances of eachcase.

157. In making the followingrecommendations, I will bear this generalapproach in mind. I will also have regard to thenature of the maladministration I have identified,which relates to a scheme that is no longer inoperation.

158. My first four recommendations areaddressed to DTI - and relate to the position ofMrs A and those in a similar position to hers. Myfifth recommendation is directed at theGovernment - and relates to the more generallessons that might be learned from thisinvestigation and other similar investigations thatI have conducted.

First recommendation159. My first recommendation is that DTIshould apologise to and make a consolatorypayment to Mrs A, and to the othercomplainants identified in this report, to reflecttangibly the inconvenience and distress causedby the maladministration I have identified.

Second recommendation160. My second recommendation is that DTIshould review the eligibility criteria and schemerules to ensure that they are consistent with thepolicy intention underlying the scheme.

Third recommendation161. My third recommendation is that, oncethat is done, DTI should fully reconsider Mrs A'scase, and the cases of the other complainantsidentified in this report, in line with the criteriawhich it determines are consistent with thepolicy intention as a result of the above review. Inthe event of any additional award, interest forloss of use of those funds should also be paid.

Fourth recommendation162. My fourth recommendation is that,following the review, DTI should consider thecases of any individuals who claim to havesuffered similar injustice as a consequence of themaladministration I have identified. If that isshown to be the case, DTI should apologise andmake consolatory payments to them; shouldreview their cases in line with criteria itdetermines are consistent with the policyintention; and, in the event of any additionalaward, interest for loss of use of those fundsshould be paid.

Fifth recommendation163. My final recommendation relates to exgratia compensation schemes more generally.During my investigation - and others that I haveconducted into similar schemes - it struck methat no central guidance exists for public bodiesthat specifically relates to the development and


operation of ex gratia compensation schemes.Such guidance can, in my view, only be helpful tothem - and may well assist in preventing a re-ocurrence of the problems I have identified inthis report. I therefore recommend that suchguidance be developed across government.

Conclusion

164. The Permanent Secretary accepted thatthe handling of the design and launch of thescheme had not been to the standard expectedand that, with the benefit of hindsight, DTIshould have undertaken a comprehensive reviewof the scheme, rather than make incrementalchanges. He agreed to make a consolatorypayment of £1,000 to Mrs A and to each of theother four complainants identified in this report,and will apologise to them for the shortcomingsthat I have identified.

165. He accepted my second recommendation,that DTI undertake a review of the eligibilitycriteria and scheme rules to ensure that they areconsistent with the policy intention underlyingthe scheme, and said that he intended to startthat review immediately.

166. The Permanent Secretary also acceptedmy third and fourth recommendations. He saidthat, should Ministers decide that the criteriawere not consistent with the policy intention,and that new criteria should be devised, DTIwould design a scheme to ensure the rules wereconsistent with the policy intention. If thecriteria were then designed in such a way as towiden eligibility, they would reassess all claims(where the maximum payment of £20,000 hadnot already been made) against the new criteria.Any additional entitlement would be paid withinterest. In addition, DTI would apologise and

make consolatory payments to all those whoreceived additional awards as a result, to reflectthe injustice they would have suffered. If anycriteria were narrowed, DTI would not seek torecover payments from those who had receivedmore than they would have been entitled tounder the revised criteria.

167. As to the fifth recommendation, theGovernment have accepted the need for centralguidance on the development and operation ofex gratia compensation schemes. The PermanentSecretary at HM Treasury has told me that HMTreasury is planning to take forward myrecommendation for such guidance and that thiswork will be incorporated into the revision of'Government Accounting', which I understand isdue for publication later this year.


Annex A

TRAWLERMEN'S COMPENSATION SCHEME

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FORMAKING CLAIMS

(REVISED AND RE-ISSUED ON 21 NOVEMBER2001. THIS DOCUMENT SUPERSEDES THEVERSION ISSUED ON 2 October 2000)

1. Purpose of schemeThe purpose of this scheme is to compensateformer UK-based Icelandic water trawlermen forthe loss of their industry due to the settlementof the "Cod Wars" of the mid-1970s.

2. Persons eligible for compensation underthe scheme2.1 Former Icelandic water trawlermen areeligible for compensation under the scheme.

2.2 "Former Icelandic water trawlerman"means -

• an individual;

• who worked at sea on vessels whichfished out of UK ports and made voyages (notnecessarily exclusively) to Icelandic waters;

• for one or more owners of such vessels.

2.3 "Vessel which fished out of UK ports"means a vessel which started and ended itstrawling voyages at a port in the United Kingdom.

2.4 "Icelandic waters" means the waters within200 miles of the Icelandic coast.

2.5 A share fisherman - that is, a fishermanpaid by a share in the gross earnings or profits ofthe vessel on which he worked - may be a formerIcelandic water trawlerman.

2.6 A radio operator may be a former

Icelandic water trawlerman.

2.7 Shore-based workers are not formerIcelandic water trawlermen.

3. Periods in respect of which a claim forcompensation may be made3.1 (a) A claim may be made in respect of thelast continuous period of work undertaken bythe former Icelandic-water trawlerman, providedthat period-

• Lasted at least two years prior to 1January 1980; and

• Ended on or after 1 January 1974.

(b) If the former Icelandic-water trawlerman'slast continuous period of work ended after 31December 1979, it shall be treated as havingended on 31 December 1979.

3.2 "Continuous period of work" means aperiod of work as an Icelandic water trawlermanduring which there were no relevant breaksbetween voyages of more than twelve weeks. A"relevant break" for these purposes means a breakduring which work (of any duration) other thanwork as an Icelandic water trawlerman was done.Breaks (whether relevant or otherwise) of lessthank twelve weeks, even if in total these add upto more thank twelve weeks, count towards thecontinuous period of work. Breaks of longer thantwelve weeks that were not relevant breaks maycount towards the continuous period, providedthat where possible evidence of the reasons forthe breaks is supplied with the claim form (seeparagraph 7.9) and provided that work as anIcelandic water trawlerman was resumed before 31December 1979.

3.3 Subject to paragraph 3.1(b), the continuousperiod of work in respect of which the claim ismade should be calculated from the date onwhich the first voyage as an Icelandic watertrawlerman in that period began, to the date on


which the last such voyage ended, inclusive ofthese dates.

3.4 Subject to paragraph 3.2, periods of workwith different owners of vessels which fished outof UK ports may together count as continuousperiods of work.

4. Who may make a claim under the scheme("claimant")4.1 A claim may be made by a formerIcelandic water trawlerman.

4.2 A claim may by made by the personalrepresentative or executor(s) of a formerIcelandic water trawlerman who is deceased.

4.3 A claim may be made by the trustee inbankruptcy of a former Icelandic watertrawlerman who is bankrupt, or, where the estateof a former Icelandic water trawlerman has beensequestrated in Scotland, by the permanenttrustee on that estate.

4.4 Where a former Icelandic watertrawlerman is incapable by reason of mentaldisorder of managing and administering hisproperty and affairs, a claim may be made on hisbehalf.

5. How to make a claim5.1 Claims must be made by completing theappropriate form. This is available from theWatford office of the Redundancy PaymentsService (RPS).

5.2 All claims will be acknowledged in writingon receipt by the Watford office of the RPS.

6. Time limit for making a claim and requestsfor missing information6.1 Completed claim forms must be receivedat the Watford office of the RPS on or before 1October 2002. No claim forms first received atthat office after that date will be consideredunder any circumstances.

6.2 If a claim form is incomplete, or is notaccompanied by sufficient supporting evidence(see paragraph 7), the claimant will be requestedin writing to supply the missing information ordocumentation, which must be supplied withinfour weeks of the request. If it is not reasonablypracticable for the claimant to supply theinformation or documentation within thattimescale, the claimant must inform the Watfordoffice of the RPS of that fact within thattimescale and the information or documentationmust then be supplied as soon as is reasonablypracticable. If these conditions are not met, theclaim will be rejected.

7. Evidence to be provided in support ofclaim7.1 In order for a claim to be paid, it must besupported by a reasonable amount ofdocumentary evidence on which to assesseligibility and the gross amount of compensationdue. This should normally take the form ofphotocopies of fishing records and/or nationalinsurance contribution records whichdemonstrate that the former Icelandic watertrawlerman was employed as such during theperiod in respect of which the claim is made.

7.2 Where a former Icelandic watertrawlerman or his personal representative hasreceived one or more payments under theED/DTI ex-gratia redundancy paymentsarrangements for former trawlermen (whichoperated between 1993 and 1995) the informationin paragraph 7.1 should already be held on file bythe RPS and the claimant will not normally beasked to provide it again. However, the RPSreserves the right in all cases to seek furthersupporting evidence from the claimant (whetherin relation to ED/DTI ex gratia redundancypayments or otherwise).

7.3 In exceptional cases, e.g. where it can bedemonstrated that fishing records were lost in a


fire or similar circumstances, the RPS may beprepared to accept a sworn statement from theclaimant in lieu of documentary evidence.

7.4 Where a claim is made by the personalrepresentative of a former Icelandic watertrawlerman, a copy of the grant of probate orletters of administration must be supplied withthe claim form. If the estate of a deceasedformer Icelandic water trawlerman is beingadministered and wound up in Scotland, a copyof the confirmation or certificate of confirmationmust be supplied with the claim form by theexecutor.

7.5 Where a former Icelandic watertrawlerman dies during the consideration of hisclaim, the claim may be pursued by his personalrepresentatives or executor(s), who should supplythe copy documents referred to in paragraph 7.4.

7.6 Where a claim is made by the trustee inbankruptcy of a former Icelandic watertrawlerman, a copy of the certificate ofappointment must be supplied with the claimform. Where a claim is made by the permanenttrustee on the sequestrated estate of a formerIcelandic water trawlerman, a copy of the act andwarrant must be supplied with the claim form.

7.7 Where a claim is made on behalf of aformer Icelandic water trawlerman who isincapable by reason of mental disorder ofmanaging and administering his property andaffairs, a copy of the relevant court order mustbe supplied with the claim form.

7.8 Where a claim is made by a formerIcelandic water trawlerman acting by his attorney,a copy of the instrument creating the power ofattorney must be supplied with the claim form.

7.9 If a claim relates to a period during whichthere was a break between voyages of more than

twelve weeks, documentary evidence must wherepossible be supplied with the form whichdemonstrates the reason for the break. Wherethe break was due to the former Icelandic watertrawlerman being ill or injured, for instance,examples of suitable evidence would includecopies of hospital records, copies of doctors'notes or evidence of payment of sick or invaliditybenefits. If no evidence is provided in respect ofa break between voyages of more than twelveweeks, the RPS will obtain copies of nationalinsurance contribution records to ascertainwhether or not any work other than work as anIcelandic water trawlerman was done during thatbreak. If so, the period of work will not beregarded as continuous.

8. Consideration of claim8.1 Claims will be considered by officials atthe Watford office of the RPS. If the criteria foreligibility described in paragraphs 2 and 3 are met,and if the procedure described in paragraphs 4 to7 is followed, compensation will be payable,calculated as described in paragraph 9.

8.2 Claimants will be notified in writing as towhether or not their claim has been successful. Ifthe claim has been unsuccessful, the reasons willalso be given.

9. Amount of compensation payable tosuccessful claimants9.1 Payment will be calculated as follows:

• gross amount of compensation: £19.23 foreach complete week of the continuous period ofwork in respect of which the claim is made, withan extra £0.01 added for each complete thirteenweek period, up to a maximum of £20,000 intotal;

• net payment to claimant: gross amountof compensation less the total amount of anypayment or payments made to him (or hispersonal representative) under the ED/DTI ex-


gratia redundancy payments arrangements forformer trawlermen in respect of the period towhich the claim for compensation relates (butnot in respect of any earlier period or periods).

9.2 Reductions in respect of such ex-gratiaredundancy payments already received will bemade from the maximum possible compensationof £20,000. This means, for example, that aformer Icelandic water trawlerman who workedas such for a continuous period of 25 years, andwho received £8,000 under the ex-gratiaredundancy payments arrangements, would beentitled to £12,000 in compensation under thisscheme (£20,000 less £8,000).

10. Method of paymentPayment will be made in pounds sterling in allcases, regardless of the claimant's place ofresidence. Payment will be by cheque or directbank transfer.

11. Appeals11.1 If a claimant is dissatisfied as a result ofthe rejection of his claim or the amount ofcompensation paid to him, he may write, settingout his grievance and the reasons for it, to-

Assistant DirectorER2bDepartment of Trade and IndustryUG591 Victoria StreetLondonSW1H 0ET

11.2 If the Assistant Director agrees that theclaim should have been accepted, or a higheramount of compensation should have been paid,he may substitute his decision for that of theofficials at the Watford office of the RPS. In suchcircumstances, the Assistant Director will notifythe claimant in writing.

11.3 If the Assistant Director does not thinkthat the claim should have been accepted, or thata higher amount of compensation should havebeen paid, he will notify the claimant in writing.If the claimant is dissatisfied with the AssistantDirector's decision, the claimant may appeal to anindependent adjudicator for a decision as towhether or not the claim should have beenaccepted, or a higher amount of compensationshould have been paid. Details of how to contactthe independent adjudicator will be given by theAssistant Director when he notifies his decisionto the claimant. An appeal will be considered bythe independent adjudicator only if it is receivedby him within twelve weeks of the AssistantDirector's decision being notified to the claimant.The independent adjudicator will notify theclaimant in writing of his decision, and once hehas done so, neither he nor the Assistant Directorwill consider the appeal any further.


Annex B

Chronology of main events

199701/07/97 The Member for Hull West andHessle addressed the House of Commons abouthis concerns for the distant water fishing industryand outlined the ex gratia payment schemeintroduced in 1993 following a Court of Appealdecision that trawlermen could, in certaincircumstances, qualify for redundancy payments.The ex gratia scheme introduced arrangementswhereby the Department of Trade and Industry(DTI) made ex gratia payments to trawlermen whohad failed, as a result of being misdirected byofficials of the then Employment Department, tosubmit a claim. Eligibility was restricted to thosewho had not complained to an industrial tribunaland who could, at the time of their redundancy,have met the qualifying conditions for a statutoryredundancy payment, one of which was a periodof at least two years' continuous service with asingle employer. Awards were calculatedaccording to the usual formula for redundancypayments. During that address he said that thecriterion for that scheme that a claimant had tohave worked for the same employer for twoyears failed to recognise the unique nature of theindustry and the way that ships were crewed.Trawlermen worked in what was called 'thescheme', also known as the 'pool system', whichwas operated by the ship owners and the thenEmployment Department and one of itsobjectives was to ensure that there was anadequate number of qualified fishermen readilyavailable for all companies participating in thescheme. When a trawler was tied up, perhaps fora refit, the trawlermen were entitled tounemployment benefit and would remain in thescheme. However, if the Employment

Department decided in conjunction with aparticipating company that it would beappropriate for a trawlerman to cover a vacancyon a trawler that belonged to a differentcompany, the trawlerman was compelled toaccept or had his benefit stopped. For that andmany other reasons relating to the industry,discontinuity of employer was a fact of life. Thereferring Member then addressed the House andsaid that he echoed his honourable friend's pleafor a fair deal for fishermen.

05/11/97 Members representing three ofthe ports most affected by the collapse of thedistant water fishing industry, Hull, Grimsby andFleetwood, met the then Minister of Trade todiscuss their concerns. Also in attendance wererepresentatives of the British Fishermen'sAssociation (BFA) formed following the collapseof the industry to campaign for compensationfor the former fishermen.

In a joint submission handed to the Minister atthat meeting the Members set out the case forfurther government compensation. Thesubmission stated that Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwoodand Aberdeen were the only ports engaged indistant water fishing - Grimsby, Fleetwood andAberdeen to varying degrees, Hull exclusively. Aninquiry in 1969 had led to the setting up ofRegistration Schemes in all key ports. Within thescheme was an individual pension provision forholiday pay and the continuation of long standingarrangements whereby trawlermen had to beready to work on any ship with any company.When a trawler was tied up for a period, perhapsfor a refit, the fishermen would be entitled tounemployment benefit but were never redirectedto non-fishing work. They were kept inside thescheme by explicit agreement with theEmployment Department provided they wereable to go to sea with another company. Suchdecisions by the then Employment Departmentled to discontinuous employment with a


particular company, although continuity wasretained within the scheme.

Because the arrangements under the ex gratiascheme that commenced in 1993 had followedthe criterion for statutory redundancy payments(requiring a minimum of two years continuousservice with a single employer), some fishermenwith 35 years' service in the industry had receivedonly £450, while the exclusion of those who hadpursued cases to industrial tribunals had resultedin 17 former fishermen who had unsuccessfullypursued such cases receiving nothing. TheMembers asked that a new scheme be set up tobetter reflect the working practices within theindustry and to offer compensation more in linewith promises that had been made by Ministersat the time of the industry's collapse. DTI's noteof the meeting recorded the main points raisedby the fishermen and their MPs among which wasthe statement that it had been the then Board ofTrade's requirement that fishermen signed off by'mutual discharge' after each voyage, otherwisethey did not get their unemployment benefit.

199831/03/98 The Members for Hull West andHessle, Great Grimsby and Blackpool North andFleetwood jointly signed a letter to the thenMinister of State at DTI that attached a draftletter to be sent to all Labour MPs that was alsojointly signed by the three Members. Paragraph 5of the draft letter criticised the previous ex gratiascheme. It was completely at odds with the factthat trawlermen worked inside a 'scheme'operated in conjunction with the EmploymentDepartment that required them to be available towork for any employer that they were directedto.

1999Summer 99 Officials from DTI and the thenMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF)

worked on a submission to be put to theirrespective Secretaries of State that outlinedoptions available to respond to the campaign bythe BFA and the port MPs. A meeting of officialsat DTI on 10 August 1999 discussed the cause ofthe downturn in the industry, statutoryredundancy payments, continuity ofemployment, a comparison with a compensationscheme for steelworkers and the position as tosocial security benefits. With regard to the latterit was noted that all deep-sea fishermen paid afull National Insurance stamp and schedule EPAYE income tax at the full rate. They were fullyentitled to unemployment benefit. However,once in receipt of benefit the fishermen werenever regarded as being 'available for work' by theEmployment Department and so were neverdirected to non-fishing work. It was the normalpractice for fishermen to be obliged to sign on ata special benefit office set up by theEmployment Department with the support andassistance of the trawler owners and situated inthe Fish Dock, rather than at their local office.Messengers, known as 'ships runners', liaiseddirect with the Employment Department andwould inform them if a man was wanted again.This system was unique as the men were nottechnically unemployed and could have beenpaid 'shore pay' from their employers instead ofbenefit. The then Department for Social Security(DSS) had confirmed that trawlermen wereentitled to social security benefits, in particularincome support, which was not dependent onNational Insurance contributions but was meanstested.

18/10/99 A DTI policy official sent asubmission to the Secretary of State. Attached tothe submission was a paper concerningcompensation for former trawlermen whichdiscussed, under subheadings, the background tothe request for a scheme by the trawlermen, ananalysis of their case for compensation,


conclusions, options and potential costs. Thesubmission noted that, in dealing with thequestion of any compensation schemeadministration, payments would relate to timespent at sea over a period going back some 40years. That would produce practical difficulties ofadministration and a number of hard cases forwhich the Government would face criticism.

The attached paper noted that the BFA acceptedthat Government was under no legal obligationto set up any scheme of compensation. Theircase was essentially a moral one. The paperacknowledged that the nature of employmentarrangements in the fishing industry precludednormal redundancy or social security benefits atthe time, as the former trawlermen were wronglyregarded as 'casuals'. The paper also noted aprevious suggestion by the then EmploymentDepartment for a Government funded scheme ofcompensation. That had been opposed byTreasury, and concerns had been expressed byMinisters in Cabinet in June 1976 over thedifficulty that would be encountered inidentifying those who had suffered genuinehardship as a result of the agreement withIceland, and in devising clear eligibility criteria. Atthat time MAFF had estimated that up to 600jobs would be lost as a result of the agreementwith Iceland. However, almost all distant watertrawlermen were made redundant over thefollowing few years. It would clearly beimpossible to tell which jobs were lost as a resultof the agreement with Iceland and which due toother factors, so any new scheme ofcompensation would have to be open in principleto all former distant water trawlermen who weremade redundant during the relevant period - say,1976 to 1986. The paper also noted that it was in1983 that the then Employment Minister made acommitment that eventually led to theestablishment of the ex gratia arrangements. Thepaper explained that those arrangements were

always envisaged as having the quite different andspecific purpose of compensating formertrawlermen whose circumstances indicated thatthey could have been disadvantaged by officialmisdirection as to their statutory entitlement.

The paper pointed out that, if Ministers were todecide in favour of establishing a special schemeof compensation to meet the formertrawlermen's demands, there would be twosignificant practical obstacles to overcome. Thefirst was that neither MAFF nor DTI had any sparecapacity within their budgets as set following theComprehensive Spending Review. Treasury wouldtherefore have to agree to provide new moneybefore any such initiative could be taken. Thesecond obstacle was that, although the annualAppropriation Act would as a matter of law giveMinisters sufficient authority to make paymentsto the former trawlermen, the Government's ownadministrative rules on finance indicated that ascheme lasting more than two years and involvingpayments of more than £900,000 per annumwould need to be the subject of primarylegislation. That had been confirmed withTreasury officials. Given that there was noimmediate prospect of parliamentary time beingfound for such legislation the practicalconsequence was that the bulk of the paymentswould have to be made within two years of thescheme's establishment. Any made after thatperiod (e.g. where late claims or appeals wereallowed) would have to be kept to an absoluteminimum. That would clearly impose constraintson the scheme's rules and operation.

If those practical obstacles were overcomeadministrative arrangements would then have tobe established for the delivery of a new scheme.One option was for that to be taken on by theDTI's Redundancy Payments Service (RPS), adivision of DTI located in Watford. That, however,would represent a significant new workload forRPS at a time when resources were already very


stretched. There was clearly a considerabledifference between processing claims based onand calculated in line with statutory redundancyentitlement, as was done under the old ex gratiaarrangements, and administering a completelynew scheme of compensation payments forformer trawlermen. Equally, MAFF had noexperience in dealing with employment mattersin the fishing industry. Which department shouldtake on any scheme would ultimately be a matterfor collective ministerial decision. The papernoted that the best estimate of the overall netcost of a scheme that met the demands of theBFA in full would be in the region of £25 millionwith administration costs of £200,000 plus. Thepaper suggested imposing clear eligibility criteria.Examples were two years' continuousemployment in the industry as a whole, takinginto account only complete years of service incalculating compensation, excluding claims fromdependants where the former trawlerman wasdeceased, imposing a strict time limit for thesubmission of claims and requiring cleardocumentary evidence of entitlement. The paperrecognised that some of those suggested rulescould be legitimately criticised as unfair - arequirement for clear documentary evidence, forexample, would be likely to exclude manyotherwise eligible claimants as officials knew thatcomplete fishing records were often unavailableso long after the event. Recognising the concernof Ministers in June 1976 regarding the framing ofeligibility criteria, the paper acknowledged thatthe problems after twenty-three years would bemany times greater.

25/11/99 Officials at HM Treasury sent asubmission to the Chief Secretary. They advisedhim that there were issues about the practicalityand effectiveness of a scheme intended toprovide compensation to a group of peopleadversely affected by a Government decisionmore than twenty years previously. At the time it

was estimated that the conclusion to the CodWar reduced employment in fishing by about600. It was, by 1999, impossible to disentanglethose 600 from the wider decline in the fishingindustry at the time which was due to othertrends. MAFF and DTI had proposed that any newscheme be open to all distant water trawlermenmade redundant between, say, 1976-86. Theyestimated the total number of claimants ataround 4,000 (but with a wide margin ofuncertainty). That would plainly weaken any linkbetween the compensation scheme and theactions of the Government. MAFF and DTI hadalso identified a number of serious administrativeproblems with operating a scheme so that it wasboth (a) equitable and (b) defensible in terms ofaccounting for Government money. Thoseproblems did not appear to have been resolved.

200002/02/00 The Prime Minister's Policy Unitwrote to the Secretary of State at DTI and saidthat while in principle the Prime Minister agreedsome compensation should be offered he wasconcerned about the cost. The Policy Unitunderstood that the unwillingness of DTI andMAFF to find the money needed to offercompensation was the major reason why progresshad not been made. They wondered whether ameeting between the Policy Unit, Treasury, DTIand MAFF would assist with progress.

11/02/00 An official from HM Treasuryemailed a colleague concerning the proposals fora compensation scheme. He was concernedabout the practicality of paying compensation ona fair and defensible basis after so many years; hehad not seen an unequivocal statement from DTIthat they thought that could be done. In anyevent he thought the scheme should besignificantly cut back from the proposal floatedthe previous October which was compensation


to everyone who lost their job in the deep-seatrawler industry in the period 1976-86. Hepreferred to focus much more tightly on theperiod immediately after the Cod War ended in1976, for example, 1976-78, so that the cost of thescheme would be more like £10 million ratherthan £25 million.

14/02/00 Officials at HM Treasury sent asubmission to the Chief Secretary. Theyreinforced their views on the need for a tightlyfocused scheme and explained that they haddiscussed the issue of funding a scheme withofficials from MAFF and DTI and also with arepresentative from the Prime Minister's PolicyUnit who had said that the imperative was tohave a solution some time that calendar year.They said that it would be sensible to ask DTI toconfirm that the practical problems withproviding ex gratia payments after so many yearscould be overcome and recommended that anassurance was sought that a compensationscheme such as the one proposed could bedevised and administered fairly, in line with therequirements for public propriety. The submissionrecognised that the scheme was a charged issuein the former fishing ports but said that the onlycase for agreeing to a scheme was political. In abriefing paper attached to that submissionprepared for the purpose of the Chief Secretary'smeeting with the port MPs on 16 February 2000,officials noted that with regard to the extent ofthe scheme, the Chief Secretary might like toconsider how eligibility might be limited to thosewho lost their jobs in 1976-77. In terms ofdefensibility they suggested that the ChiefSecretary might ask whether information existedthat would allow a scheme to be operated fairly.

28/02/00 A Treasury official wrote to theprivate secretary to the Secretary of State at DTI.He referred to a meeting that had taken place on23 February 2000 attended by representatives ofthe Policy Unit, DTI, MAFF and Treasury and some

special advisers. Those attending the meeting hadagreed that the practicalities of a compensationscheme should be explored further withoutreaching any decision. They further agreed that asmall team of HM Treasury, DTI and MAFFofficials should convene to explore the feasibilityof a scheme. The objective was a scoping exerciseto determine whether it was possible to design aviable scheme and what that might contain. Thegroup would report to ministers by 28 April 2000.The letter listed those issues that should beconsidered.

24/03/00 The Minister of State sent aminute to a DTI official that suggested officialsmet representatives of the BFA to discuss theinformation they said they could provide insupport of compensation claims by formerdistant water trawlermen.

14/04/00 Officials sent a submission to theSecretary of State in which they said thatalthough a meeting with the BFA could be usefulas it might help them to fill gaps in their existingrecords, they recommended that no suchmeeting took place until the Secretary of Stateand his ministerial colleagues had decided inprinciple to go ahead with a compensationscheme. The submission also noted that the BFAinformation related only to Hull, Grimsby andFleetwood, while they had to take account ofpotential claims from other ports involved indistant water trawling, in particular, Lowestoft,Aberdeen and Milford Haven. Officials from DTI,MAFF and the Treasury were then preparing anote responding to questions raised at the 23February 2000 meeting and one of the issues thenote would address was the adequacy of theinformation available on which to assessclaimants' eligibility. The officials were satisfiedthat they could provide a positive response onthe point. The information offered by the BFAwas not therefore required for the purposes oftheir then scoping exercise. Officials believed


that at that stage a meeting with the BFA wasbound to raise expectations, even if they made itclear there was no commitment on the part ofthe Government to go ahead with a scheme andthe meeting was merely to ascertain whatinformation the BFA could provide. Nevertheless,any information the BFA could provide would behelpful as it would help officials to fill in gaps intheir own existing records.

09/05/00 DTI officials sent a submission tothe Secretary of State attached to which was apaper designed to respond to the scopingquestions posed by the Treasury following themeeting on 23 February 2000. The paper said thatthe collapse of the distant water fishing industrywas generally recognised to have occurredbetween 1974 - when the second of the 'CodWars' ended - and 1979. Statistics showed thattrips by British vessels to Icelandic waters ceasedafter 1976 - when the third and last of the 'CodWars' ended - and those to other distant waterssignificantly declined. The paper gave threeoptions for limiting scheme eligibility. Thescheme could be open to those who left theindustry between 1974 and 1979 (option 1), whichwould fully satisfy the former trawlermen andthose campaigning on their behalf but may bringwithin the scheme's coverage some who left theindustry for reasons unrelated to the settlementof the 'Cod Wars'. The scheme could cover theyears between 1976 and 1979 (option 2) whichwould exclude all those who left the industrybefore the last of the 'Cod Wars' ended, butwould still cover virtually all those who did soafter that point. If the scheme were to cover theyears between 1976 and 1977 (option 3), thatwould be more sharply focused, but would belikely to be criticised as unfairly excluding somewho genuinely lost their jobs due to the 'CodWars' although not in the immediate aftermathof the final one. The paper noted that in all threecases, payments could be restricted to those

former trawlermen who had worked for vesselowners known to have trawled in Icelandic waters- although in practice most vessel owners werelikely to have had interests in most distant waterfishing operations. A further eligibility conditionthat could be reasonably imposed, regardlesswhich of the three options was taken, would be arequirement for two years' continuous servicewithin the industry (disregarding short between-voyage breaks) but not necessarily with the sameemployer. That could be justified on the basisthat a claimant should be able to demonstrate acertain degree of commitment to the industry inorder to be eligible for compensation; and theformer trawlermen's representatives hadindicated that they would be content with such acondition. Proof of eligibility could be obtainedfrom copies of the relevant fishing records and/orfrom National Insurance contribution recordsavailable from the then DSS.

The paper accompanying the submission madethe point that the DTI spending review bid didnot cover the cost of a scheme. DTI officials, indiscussion with their Treasury and MAFFcounterparts, had made clear that if DTI was torun the scheme additional funding would berequired to meet the cost. If the Secretary ofState and his colleagues went ahead with ascheme the issue of its funding would thereforeneed to be addressed as part of the SpendingReview 2000 process. The paper also dealt with aprospective timetable. Under Treasury rules ascheme involving payments of more than£900,000 per annum had to conclude within twoyears if it was not to be subject to primarylegislation. If Ministers went ahead with acompensation scheme officials recommendedthat claims be admitted during the period 1 April2001 to 31 December 2002 with no exceptionsmade for any received after that date. That wouldallow for all claims to be processed and actioncompleted within the financial years 2001 - 02


and 2002 - 03 and allow time for RPS to recruitrequired additional staff, for claim forms andother scheme literature to be drawn up andprinted, and for publicity arrangements to be putin place before the scheme opened. That wasdependent upon RPS receiving a supplementaryrunning cost allocation representing a proportionof the £250,000 estimated administrative costs.The intention to run a scheme could beannounced in the summer if Ministers wished todo so.

24/05/00 In a submission to the ChiefSecretary a Treasury official noted that the reportof officials from MAFF, DTI and HM Treasuryproposed that if a scheme went ahead anannouncement could be made in the summerwith payments under the scheme made fromApril 2001 onwards to a cut-off of December2002. He thought there was a risk of criticismthat that timetable was too slow as a summerannouncement would create an expectationwhich would not be satisfied for at least anothernine months. There would be further pressurefrom MPs and trawlermen's representatives tomeet claims on a shorter timescale. DTI hadindicated that a reasonable period for paying outon claims would be four months from theannouncement which would allow sufficient timefor recruiting the team, establishing forms andsystems, advertising, and receiving and processingclaims. Should the Chief Secretary feel that thetimetable should be shortened, as a higherpolitical priority, some applications could be paidfrom October 2000. As to the three options putforward for a scheme, officials recommendedthat the Chief Secretary reject option 1 andaccept option 3 which would limit the cost to £13million. Should he wish to open up thecompensation scheme to a wider group oftrawlermen, they recommended option 2 as thenext best alternative. The submission stated thatin terms of adequacy of records DTI was

confident that payments could be restricted toformer trawlermen who worked for vessel ownersknown to have trawled in Icelandic waters. Proofof eligibility could be obtained from copies ofthe relevant fishing records and/or NationalInsurance contribution records from the DSS.Many of those documents were submitted orhad been obtained under the previous ex gratiascheme. The key issue would be the rigorouscross-checking of claims to protect against fraud.

22/06/00 The then Chief Secretary to theTreasury wrote to the Secretary of State at DTI.He had seen the report compiled by officials andhe was prepared to agree to a compensationscheme. That was on the basis that theassumptions in the report were acceptedregarding a requirement of two years' continuousservice in the industry (not necessarily with thesame employer); a payment of £1,000 per year ofservice at sea; payment under the ex gratiaarrangements was offset against the claimant'sentitlement under the new scheme; sharefishermen were to be included; and payment infull to widows and dependants of deceasedtrawlermen. He proposed a limit of £10,000 onindividual payments. He proposed that thescheme be limited to those who left the industryduring 1974-79 but did not provide any reason forselecting that option. In terms of timescale, theChief Secretary said that they should look toexpedite it quickly and an announcement couldbe made in the summer. In order to meetapplications and payments made during 2000-01he would be prepared to make available access tothe reserve, with costs incurred from April 2001forming part of DTI's settlement in SpendingReview 2000. Given the normal rules onexpenditure incurred without specific statutoryauthority the scale of the scheme (over £900,000per annum) must be concluded within two years,in order to avoid primary legislation. He thereforeproposed that the deadline for admitting claims


should be 31 December 2002 as set out in thereport.

29/06/00 Officials were asked to commenton a draft submission and take forward thedrafting of a more detailed note on the scheme'seligibility criteria fleshing out the basic criteriathen agreed by the Chief Secretary to theTreasury. In commenting upon the submission asenior official commented that he wished tomake two announcements; one to be made soonand one when applications can be made. TheSecretary of State would no doubt wish the gapto be a minimum. He asked whether they couldget into a position where the Secretary of Statecould invite claims at the party conference andwhether they could promise that paymentswould be made to early applicants by Christmas.He was then advised by the author of thesubmission that they were sufficiently advancedto enable the Secretary of State to invite claimsat the party conference, if he wished to do so,and that payments to early applicants were likelyto be made by Christmas, but he should not givea firm promise.

07/07/00 DTI officials met to discuss a paperconcerning the proposed compensation schemethat included proposed eligibility criteria. Thepaper suggested that in order to be eligible forpayment under the scheme, a claimant must haveeither worked at sea as a fisherman for acontinuous period of at least two years ending ona date between 1 January 1974 and 31 December1979, for one or more vessel owners who carriedout fishing in Icelandic waters and did notcontinue or resume working at sea as a fishermanat a later date. An occasional interval of up toone or two months - for example, an intervalbetween voyages or between work for differentvessel owners - should not be taken to breakcontinuity for those purposes and should becounted as part of the continuous period. Thepaper asked whether there was any need to clear

the proposals with Ministers or HM Treasury orMAFF, and also asked whether there was anymerit in consulting the BFA on eligibility criteria,once an official announcement of the schemewas made. (I have not seen any notes of themeeting on 7 July so do not know the agreedanswer to that question.)

July 2000 The Chairman of the Hull BFA sentto DTI officials a list which contained 16 reasonsfor a break in a trawlerman's service record. Hesaid that was why the Government's two yearrule in which to qualify for compensation couldseriously affect the trawlerman's sea record andthus his entitlement to compensation. Any gapsin a man's record caused legitimately by thereasons on the list should be disregarded whenthe two year rule for qualifying was calculated.Among those reasons were: time off the ship's logwhen the ship's annual survey could last for daysor weeks; every four years the Lloyd's surveywould take the ship out of service for weeks; thecompany asking you to sign off the ship's log; theship breaking down; the ship being scrapped;companies loaning men out to other companies;and men on standby under companiesinstructions. When a ship was lost, survivorswould get twelve weeks' survival pay on shore. Hedid not say that the list of reasons wasexhaustive.

11/07/00 Officials from RPS sent a fax totheir colleagues at DTI that contained a list ofquestions regarding the scheme. One of thosequestions referred to clarification on the timelimits for the occasional interval. On receipt, thatquestion was highlighted and '3 /4 months'written beside it with the '4' crossed through.

18/07/00 In framing a response to the RPSquestions DTI officials thought that the schemeshould not be restricted to people who weremade redundant or became unemployed. Even ifthey resigned or took jobs elsewhere, that may


have been effectively forced on them by thecollapse of Icelandic water fishing (and it alsoremoved one further issue for operational staffto consider). Furthermore (on a point of draftingemphasis) they really needed to tell operationalstaff what they had decided the eligibility criteriawere to be rather than making suggestions. Theywould then simply be following instructions inprocessing claims. The officials noted that theSecretary of State wanted a firm opening date tobe included in the initial announcement and theysuggested 1 October 2000.

That same day DTI officials sent a response to thelist of questions from RPS. At point 10, undertime limits, they said that any gap in service ofmore than three months, whatever the reason forit, should be taken as breaking continuity for thepurposes of the scheme. (The BFA had at onetime given them details of the reasons whypeople might not be at sea and the longestreasonable gap was twelve weeks' leave forsurvivors of a sunken vessel.) That conditionshould be rigorously applied.

20/07/00 DTI officials provided RPS 'withlines to take' in the form of questions andanswers when dealing with telephone enquiries.One question was 'what happens if I stoppedfishing for a short period?'. The provided answersaid that they would discount breaks of up tothree months but a period of service with longerbreaks than that would not be counted ascontinuous.

28/07/00 DTI officials discussedarrangements for the official announcement ofthe scheme. They circulated a draft of a letter, forsignature by the relevant Minister, to the portMPs informing them of the decision to establisha scheme. It was decided that an official shouldspeak to the Chairman of the Hull BFA orsomeone else from the BFA by telephone toinform them of the news. That same day an

official recorded the conversation with theChairman in an email. The official filled him in onthe details of the scheme and told him that theywould be having a meeting with him shortly toget the help of the BFA with some furtherdetailed matters. They would send him a copy ofthe press notice. He said that the only distantwater trawlers sailed from Hull, Grimsby andFleetwood - certainly not from Milford Haven,although there may have been the odd one fromLowestoft. He did not know about Aberdeen. Hesaid he had been through a list of 2,800 vesselsand identified 197 distant water trawlers. He hadpassed that information to the Member for HullWest and Hessle.

02/08/00 A DTI official emailed the office ofthe Minister of State and said that the Secretaryof State had approved a meeting betweenofficials and the BFA. Although officials had hadtelephone conversations with the Chairman ofthe Hull BFA they asked the Minister's office tomake the arrangements.

07/08/00 The legal section in DTI sent amemorandum to policy officials that contained anumber of comments and questions in relation tothe scheme. One question was whether a breakof less than three months from the industrybroke continuity. On 8 August a policy officialreplied and referred to a meeting between thepolicy and legal sections concerning the schemethat afternoon. The reply said that a break ofthree months from the industry did breakcontinuity. The BFA had given them 101 reasonswhy there were breaks in service and none ofthem was longer than three months. That is whythey had opted for that period. The way thefishing industry was run in ports like Hull andGrimsby was that all trawler owners belonged tothe same 'pool' and the trawlermen could go outon any trawler they wanted. That was why theywere never considered in the past to qualify forstatutory redundancy payments as they signed on


and off each voyage. The official also explainedthat the limit on individual payments had beenset at £20,000 for a full 20 years at sea. That sameday a policy official spoke with the Secretary ofthe Hull BFA and confirmed that a meeting wasplanned with the BFA where the points theywanted to raise would be discussed with officials.

15/08/00 A policy official notified the officeof the Minister of Sate that they had arranged ameeting for 8 September 2000 with theChairman and the other members of the HullBFA. The meeting would be a chance to discussthe eligibility criteria and the application formand other concerns the BFA might have.

17/08/00 Policy officials sent the draftscheme document to the legal section forconsideration. It included a section concerningappeals against decisions to reject claims whichsaid that any such appeals should, in the firstinstance, be referred to the Assistant DirectorER2 at DTI's London headquarters. If the appealwas not upheld it would be referred to anindependent adjudicator for final decision. Theywould appreciate a swift response as they werefirmly committed to a 2 October 2000 start datefor the scheme and there was still quite a lot tobe done before then. That same day policyofficials sent RPS a family tree of the Hulltrawling fleet and sixteen reasons (dated July2000) why trawlermen might have a break inservice of up to three months. They should noteit said '12 weeks' on one of them.

18/08/00 The legal section sent a responseand attached their redraft of the schemedocumentation. The redraft said that a claimcould be made in respect of the last continuousperiod of work of at least two years undertakenby former Icelandic trawlermen provided thecontinuous period of work ended on a datebetween 1 January 1974 and 31 December 1979; andwork as an Icelandic trawlerman was not resumed

after the date on which the continuous period ofwork ended. The legal section noted that thatmeant that a trawlerman who worked for morethan two years had a break of three months andthen worked for less than two years after thatwould get nothing. They asked whether policyofficials were happy with that. Policy officialsreplied that they were. The legal section's redraftsaid that 'continuous period of work' meant aperiod of work as an Icelandic water trawlermanduring which there were no breaks betweenvoyages to Icelandic waters (for whatever reason,including but not limited to illness or fishing onvessels outside Icelandic waters) of more thantwelve weeks. Breaks of less than twelve weeks,even if in total these add up to more than twelveweeks, counted toward the continuous period ofwork. The legal section noted that a trawlermanwho worked on local vessels for the majority ofhis time but did an Icelandic trip every threemonths or so could make a claim. Unless therewas some minimum requirement for the amountof time spent on Icelandic trips someone whoonly occasionally worked on them could benefit.Officials said they were content to live with that.The legal section gathered that mixed service wasrare and the policy section may be content tokeep it simple and not have such a requirement.Officials confirmed mixed service was rare. Theybelieved mixed service was virtually unknown.

22/08/00 Policy officials were requested tobrief the Minister of State the following day onthe compensation scheme and a general progressupdate, together with queries raised by theChairman of the Hull BFA about qualificationconditions.

24/08/00 The office of the Minster of Statesent a memo to policy officials. The Minister'smain concern was about qualification forpayment for those who had given up distantwater fishing but had continued to fishelsewhere. The Minister was happy to agree that


the draft note on eligibility and procedure,together with the draft claim form, should besent to the Chairman and Secretary of the HullBFA prior to the 8 September meeting. TheMinister also suggested that it would be wise toinvite representatives from the other ports tocome in separately to see policy officials. Hesuggested it might also be wise to suggest to theSecretary of State that he write to the port MPsindicating that that was the intention of officials.That could be useful given the close linksbetween port MPs and representatives of localfishing communities. The Minister commentedthat there may well be other problems thatemerged in the course of those meetings - hewas only concentrating on the one issue. On 24August policy officials wrote to the BFArepresentatives for Grimsby and Fleetwood andinformed them that as part of the exercise toensure that people who were eligible to receivepayments did so, a meeting had been arrangedwith BFA officials for 8 September. Officials wereworking on various matters, including thedetailed eligibility terms and the meeting was todiscuss various matters to help in that process.The Chairman of the Hull branch would beattending and officials understood from him thathe would also cover issues concerning the portsof Grimsby and Fleetwood. If the Grimsby andFleetwood representatives had any informationthat they thought policy officials should haverelating to the issue, they would be pleased toreceive it.

30/08/00 A policy official made a file noteof telephone conversations with the BFArepresentatives for Grimsby and Fleetwood on 29August 2000. The Grimsby representative wasupset that she had not been invited to themeeting and an official had explained that theyhad not thought she was fit to travel. Therepresentative said she would attend in awheelchair and two colleagues would accompany

her. She made clear there was a poor relationshipbetween the Grimsby and Hull branches of theBFA. The official asked her about Aberdeen andshe said she had represented them too in thepast. She confirmed that 'only a few' were distantwater trawlerman. She then said that 1979 was tooearly for a cut-off date. The representative forFleetwood also confirmed that the Grimsby andHull branches did not see eye to eye but shewould also attend the meeting with twocolleagues from Fleetwood. That same day apolicy official sent to the legal section first draftsof the background note and guidance noterelating to the overall scheme and eligibilitycriteria.

31/08/00 The legal section emailed policyofficials with their comments on those twodocuments. They thought it important to spellout exactly what periods could be claimed for sothat applicants did not waste time completingthe application only to find a three month breakmade them ineligible. They had thereforeexpanded the eligibility paragraph. It was still abit confusing and although policy officials wantedto keep things short they might consider puttingin examples to illustrate who may be ineligible toclaim. One such example was a formertrawlerman who worked in Icelandic waters from1968-1973, had a break of one year during whichhe did other work, and then returned to Icelandicwater trawling for three years from 1975-1978. Hewould be eligible for compensation in respect ofthe period he worked during 1975-1978 which washis last continuous period of at least two years.The revised background note described acontinuous period as one in which there were nobreaks of longer than twelve weeks. A trawlermanneed not have worked for the same employerduring the period of his claim. If he had a breakof longer than twelve weeks from Icelandic watertrawling work (for example, due to illness orfishing outside Icelandic waters), his claim could


only relate to Icelandic water trawling done afterthe end of that break. Breaks of less than twelveweeks, even where they added up to more thantwelve weeks in total, counted towards thecontinuous period. The revised guidance noterequested applicants to give details of any breaksin employment and the reasons for them. A breakof more than twelve weeks would break theperiod of continuous service and would reducetheir payment.

03/09/00 The Chairman of Hull BFA wrote toa policy official and enclosed an amended list ofreasons for breaks in a trawlerman's service,amended as of 1 September 2000. Included inthat list were trawlermen who worked by newvessels during the Fitting Out period; men on'walkabout' due to employers' petty treatment ofthe men; and men who worked on shore side forthe company whilst waiting for a trawler berth.He also enclosed some suggestions for an agenda.The agenda listed forty-one points. Point 13concerned breaks in service and referred to thelist of reasons amended on 1 September. TheChairman wished to know whether some or all ofthose breaks would figure in the calculation ofpayments. If not all then which of the reasons hehad provided would not qualify for payment.

04/09/00 Policy officials wrote to the BFArepresentatives for Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwoodand explained who would be in attendance at themeeting. The letter said that the eligibility criteriahad already been agreed by Ministers. Thepurpose of the meeting would therefore be todiscuss ways of ensuring that former trawlermeneligible for payment got it as quickly as possible.They enclosed a copy of the application formand a definition of the scheme criteria drawn upby DTI's lawyers. A copy of the guidance noteswould be available at the meeting.

08/09/00 A meeting took place betweenpolicy officials, officials from RPS and

representatives of the BFA. A DTI official made anote of the meeting. Point 7 of that noterecorded that the BFA had said that allowing atwelve week gap in employment was not enough.A trawlerman could be waiting for a job aftergetting a Mate's ticket and that would extend thegap between voyages. They also explained about'walkabout' - i.e. blacklisting - of some formertrawlermen and said that getting a job oftendepended on the whim of the trawler owners.Trawlers could also be laid up because they hadalready fished their quota and could not go backto sea until the next one was due. There were alot of injuries at sea and it was considered thatthese should be classed as 'Acts of God'. Theysuggested that up to six months should beallowed between voyages before continuity wasconsidered broken and also that 'specialcircumstances' might justify an even longerbetween-voyage gap. They said that radiooperators should be included in the scheme.They agreed to provide a definitive list of whatthey considered to be 'special circumstances'. Apolicy official said that DTI would need toconsider the question of what evidence might beavailable to verify what claimants were doingduring between-voyage gaps. A policy officialended the meeting by explaining that officialscould not themselves agree to change anysignificant aspect of the scheme rules; the BFA'spoints would need to be put to the Secretary ofState for consideration and, if necessary, adecision. He agreed to take that forward and letthe BFA know the outcome.

That same day there was an exchange of emailsbetween the legal section and policy officials.The legal section thought changes made to thescheme document reflected that morning'smeeting as they meant that the scheme wouldthen include those who worked on ships whichmay have spent most of their time on trips toother waters, provided they made at least two


Icelandic water trips. If they made any Icelandicwater trips that meant they must have beendistant water vessels. A policy official replied thathe intended to put a submission to Ministers thefollowing Monday to ask for decisions on theradio operators point and the point aboutwhether or not they should allow someexceptions to the 'twelve week rule' on breaks incontinuity and also to ask them (subject to thosepoints) to sign off the documentation.

10/09/00 The Chairman of the Hull BFAwrote to a policy official and said that he feltthere was a need for a further meeting prior to 2October with the three separate branches of theBFA but the meetings should be separate andindividual in the light of the disappointments of8 September meeting. He believed one of theGrimsby BFA representatives had disrupted themeeting. He requested answers to the points onthe agenda he had submitted as due to thedisruptions it was not possible to discuss relevantmatters. The Chairman also wrote to RPS andenclosed a copy for the policy official. In thatletter he made clear that because of thedisruption the purpose of the meeting becamelost. They did not finalise those details thatneeded to be finalised. There would have to be afurther meeting to finalise the definition ofIcelandic/distant water trawlerman and thecriteria that surrounded that definition. Hesuggested separate and individual meetings.

11/09/00 A policy official sent a submissionto the Secretary of State concerning the scheme.He said that the 8 September meeting hadproved very helpful to them despite heateddisagreements between BFA members fromdifferent port areas. The BFA were concerned atthe proposed rule that any between-voyage gapof more than twelve weeks, for whatever reason,should be disregarded as breaking continuityboth for the purposes of the two year qualifyingperiod and for the purposes of calculating the

amount of payment due. They argued that thereshould be a list of 'special exceptions' (includingsickness or injury) which, if supported bydocumentary evidence, would justify a longerbetween voyage gap being disregarded. Officialshad pointed out that the line had to be drawnsomewhere if the continuity conditions were tobe meaningful, and that the need to considerspecial exceptions and supporting evidence(which could be difficult to obtain so long afterthe event) would increase the complexity of thescheme and the length of time taken by RPS toassess claims. They had invited the BFA to submiturgently a list of special exceptions they thoughtshould be included which they expected toreceive later that week. If there was any delay itmight not be possible to incorporate any changesin time for the scheme opening date. Thesubmission recommended that on balance longergaps should be allowed in the case of sickness orinjury, where supported by documentaryevidence, but that no other exceptions should bemade.

13/09/00 The office of the Secretary ofState emailed the policy official. They said theSecretary of State had seen his submission andwas happy to have special exceptions for thosewho had journey gaps of more than twelveweeks. He wished the policy official to check thatthe Minister of State was happy with thatproposal.

18/09/00 The office of the Minister of Stateemailed policy officials about those mattersarising from the meeting with the BFA and thesubmission to the Secretary of State. Regardinggaps of more than twelve weeks, the Ministersaid that of course illness or injury should notcount against the men but there were othercircumstances such as 'walkabout' wheretrawlermen were left to kick their heels forlonger than twelve weeks before finding a ship.They needed to be flexible, recognising that


those with whom they wished to deal were thosewho left to take other jobs and then returned.They should be identifiable. The Minister wantedto know whether it was true that that rule wasnot applied to the ex gratia scheme. A policyofficial replied and said that 'walkabout' was oneof the issues raised at the meeting with the BFA.The difficulty he saw with allowing breaks ofmore than twelve weeks for reasons such as thatwas that it was unlikely that reliable documentaryevidence would be available so long after theevent to prove the reason for the break. If theylooked at it the other way round and said theywould disregard all breaks of over twelve weeksexcept where the reason for the break was that aformer trawlerman took a break outside theindustry for a time, checking the claims would bemuch more difficult. National Insurance recordswould have to be checked and the BenefitsAgency asked if they were willing to take thatwork. It would also increase the costs of thescheme. He was happy to discuss the matterfurther with the Minister at a meeting scheduledfor the following day.

Policy officials met with the Minister of State.The Minister's outstanding concern was the rulethat between-voyage gaps of more than twelveweeks should be regarded as breaking continuity.He wanted to limit that to between-voyage gaps,in which the former trawlerman tookemployment outside the distant water fishingindustry, so that between-voyage gaps ofwhatever length would be disregarded if theywere for reasons other than that (including butnot limited to injury, illness, 'walkabout', andtraining at naval college). The Minister pointedout that in practice the trawlermen would nothave had between-voyage gaps of more thantwelve weeks voluntarily, unless it was to workoutside the industry, so any such gap could beassumed to be imposed upon them, or at leastnot be of their own making. He did not define

what he meant by working outside the industryso as to clarify, for example, whether work on adistant water vessel in dry dock was work withinor outside the industry. The official pointed outthat such a rule would make it more difficult tovalidate claims. The Minister argued that thenumber of claimants who had between-voyagegaps of more than twelve weeks, and who couldnot provide documentary evidence of thereasons for them, would be small. The policyofficial said he would think about it further. Theproblem that policy officials saw with what theMinister proposed was that it would put the onuson operational staff to consider potentially manydifferent types of documentary evidence ofreasons for between-voyage gaps of more thantwelve weeks. If the exception to the twelveweek rule was limited to cases of injury or illnessas policy officials had proposed, the onus wouldthen be on the claimant to prove that they wereill or injured during the case in question.However, the Minister clearly had strong feelingson the point. The difficulty, as policy officials sawit, was an operational one rather than one ofpolicy. It was clear that in principle they couldmake the change the Minister had requested.Subject to any comments from RPS, policyofficials suggested that the change be made andthey accept that the processing of claims wouldtake a little longer where the issue actually arose.

25/09/00 Policy officials sent RPS revisedcopies of the scheme document and referred inparticular to paragraphs 3.2 and 7.9 of theeligibility criteria and the procedure for makingclaims as they reflected the changes requestedby the Minister of State. Paragraph 3.2 defined a'relevant break' as a break during which work ofany duration other than work as an Icelandicwater trawlerman was done. Breaks, whetherrelevant or otherwise, of less than twelve weeks,even if in total they added up to more thantwelve weeks, counted towards the continuous


period of work. Breaks of longer than twelveweeks that were not relevant breaks might counttowards the continuous period provided that,where possible, evidence of the reasons for thebreaks was supplied with the claim form andprovided that work as an Icelandic watertrawlerman was resumed before 31 December1979.

A policy official emailed the office of theSecretary of State and said that the proposals forthe scheme had been discussed with the Ministerof State. He had had one concern about theconditions for breaks in continuous service, i.e.the issue of 'special exceptions'. They hadaddressed that by amending the schemedocumentation to make clear that continuity wasregarded as having been broken by any betweenvoyage gap of more than twelve weeks whereduring that gap the claimant was, for part or all ofthe time, engaged in work outside the industry.That meant work other than on vessels thattrawled in Icelandic waters. Other between-voyage gaps of more than twelve weeks would allbe disregarded on the assumption that they musthave been for reasons beyond the formertrawlerman's control. Examples were illness, injury,'walkabout' or training at naval college and that itwould be unfair to regard him as having left theindustry during that period. The amendmentwould make it more difficult and time consumingfor RPS staff to validate claims where the issuearose, but it would produce a fairer result andwould be welcomed by the BFA.

24/10/00 Following a query from the legalsection policy officials clarified that the wordingof the scheme document meant that a period ofwork of less than two years after a break wouldbe enough to disqualify the claimant in respectof their earlier service, however long that was,but would not be enough to qualify them for thescheme. Although that was the intention policyofficials foresaw problems if they received claims

from people who had worked for twenty years,had a break in service, and then did one morevoyage before leaving the industry.

16/11/00 The Member for Waveney wroteto the Secretary of State about a constituentwho was a former Icelandic water trawlerman.The constituent had applied for compensationunder the scheme but had found he wasineligible as he had had a break of six monthsfrom Icelandic water work in the period 1974-79.He had remained at sea but as there was no workavailable in the Icelandic fleet he was forced totake work out of Lowestoft in non-Icelandicwaters. He wondered whether there was anyflexibility in the scheme that would allowsomething to be done to help his constituent.

21/11/00 The Secretary of State replied. Hesaid the scheme criteria had been designed to berelatively generous in disregarding breaks inservice but where a former trawlerman had morethan twelve consecutive weeks doing other work,his livelihood was not regarded as having beendependent upon the Icelandic water industryduring that period and his continuity of servicewas therefore broken. He was sure the Memberwould understand that there was no discretionunder the scheme for aspects of the eligibilitycriteria to be disregarded in individual cases.

29/11/00 The office of the Minister of Stateemailed policy officials concerning threeconstituents of the Minister who had raisedqueries concerning their eligibility under thescheme. One case concerned a formertrawlerman whose daughter had a condition thatwas not properly diagnosed until she was aged 18,by which time it was far too progressed to treatproperly. The former trawlerman had takenbreaks from service of more than three monthsto help treat his daughter who went throughseveral serious operations to try and improve hercondition. Policy officials replied the same day


and said that the former trawlerman's breaks inservice to look after his daughter should notpresent a problem in terms of calculating hisclaim. The breaks should be treated as part of hiscontinuous period of service - as he was notworking for another employer outside theindustry during those periods.

200116/01/01 At a meeting to discuss thefinancial implications of the scheme RPS reportedthat very few of the trawlermen had between-voyage breaks where they worked outside theindustry, such as the one who was in prison. Itwas becoming very difficult to find out whichships had actually sailed to Icelandic waters. TheBFA had originally provided a list of 26 ships thathad sailed from Grimsby to Icelandic waters.However, RPS had received a list of over 120 shipssupposed to have sailed to Icelandic waters butthere was nothing to substantiate that. The BFAhad said identification of ships would be easy asthey had to be licensed but it transpired a licencewas unnecessary and approaches to MAFF hadnot produced anything of substance. RPS pointedout that according to maps, parts of the Faroes'territorial waters were actually within 200 milesof Iceland which meant that those who hadfished the Faroes would also be eligible. Asubmission would be put to the Minister inwhich, among other matters, he could be askedto write to his opposite number in MAFF to see ifthat department could produce a list of vesselsthat sailed to Iceland. A similar question could beput to the then Department for the Environment,Transport and the Regions. RPS said they had alsodiscussed the position of those who wereworking in the dry dock or other such activitieswith a policy official. It was confirmed the claimswere valid unless the trawlerman concerned wasactually working outside the industry.

29/01/01 At a meeting policy officials andRPS representatives discussed those people whohad started work on Icelandic trawlers and hadthen gone on to do middle-water work, returningto Icelandic water trawling at the end of theperiod. It was agreed that continuity would bebroken in those circumstances; claimants shouldonly be paid for their last period of Icelandicwater employment. It was also confirmed thatbreaks of less than thirteen weeks, for any reasonat all, were to be discounted.

31/01/01 The discussion among policyofficials as to how they applied thecompensation rules in practice continued byemail. They had a list, at that time yet to befinalised, of vessels that had been to Iceland. If aformer trawlerman had worked on vessels on thatlist and there was not any break of more thantwelve weeks then the claimant was entitled to£1,000 per year subject to a limit of £20,000 onindividual payments. If the trawlerman worked ona vessel not on that list continuity was broken sothat the start of the period used to calculatecompensation was determined by the start dateof the trip on a listed vessel which immediatelyfollowed the voyage on an unlisted vessel. If theperiod between voyages on a listed vessel wereall twelve weeks or less it did not matter whatthe claimant did in the break periods. Whateverhe did it did not break continuity. If any periodbetween voyages on a listed vessel was morethan twelve weeks it broke continuity if there wasgood evidence that the claimant did any workwhatsoever, no matter how short the duration,during that period. If the claimant did not do anywork during that period it did not breakcontinuity no matter how long the period.

However, if that were correct they might need todiscuss a situation in which a claimant went toAustralia for five years. Service on a vessel not onthe list did not break continuity if it was doneduring a break of less then twelve weeks between


service on vessels that were on the list. Theofficials agreed that, under the scheme rules,between-voyage breaks of whatever length weredisregarded if no work was done during them.The BFA had argued, and Ministers agreed, that itwould be unfair if service was broken by periodsof illness, injury, 'walkabout', training, nationalservice etc. They had toyed at one point with theidea of drawing up a list of special circumstancesthat would not break continuity. In the end theydecided that that would pose so manyoperational difficulties - in that in each case theclaimant would have had to have been asked toprovide documentary evidence of the reason fora particular break - as in practice evidence mightnot be realistically available to him after so manyyears. Processing staff would have to check andverify the evidence and so it seemed that theonly sensible solution was to disregard any breakapart from one of more than twelve weeks inwhich the claimant did other paid work. Thatcould be easily checked from National Insurancecontribution records. It was noted that RPSthought that was not as straightforward as wasfirst believed. Officials agreed that it could lookexceptionally generous in some cases if, forexample, someone had gone off to Australia forfive years and not done any work in that period.But those would be very few and far between. Asa rule of thumb it seemed reasonable to supposethat if someone did no work during a betweenvoyage break it was generally for reasons beyondtheir control and it was fair to deem them tohave been still dependent on the Icelandic waterindustry for their livelihood.

01/02/01 Policy officials compiled anddiscussed a list of frequently asked questions andthe answers in order to clarify how certain termsin the scheme rules were intended to beinterpreted. One question was 'What did acontinuous period of work mean?'. The answersaid that a continuous period of work meant any

period during which a claimant had 'no relevantbreak' of more than twelve weeks between theend of one voyage on a vessel on the DTI list andthe start of another voyage on the DTI list. A'relevant break' was a break during which otherwork, of whatever duration and of whatever kind,was done. Other work included other fishingwork on a vessel not on the DTI list, in effect, avessel that never went to Icelandic waters. If noother work was done in the break, that break wasnot a 'relevant break' and would be counted aspart of the period of continuous service,regardless how long it lasted. That appliedregardless of whether the break was due toillness, injury, 'walkabout', unemployment,national service, training, imprisonment or anyother reason. Unless a person did other workduring the break, he was deemed to haveremained dependent on the Icelandic waterfishing industry for his livelihood. Breaks of lessthan twelve weeks between the end of onevoyage on a vessel on the DTI list and the start ofanother voyage on a vessel on that list werecounted as part of the continuous period ofservice, regardless how many such breaks therewere and what was done during them.

14/02/01 There was a further meetingbetween policy officials and RPS representativesto discuss the financial implications of thescheme. The record of the meeting shows thatpart of the discussion focused on thecompilation of the list of vessels that had sailedto Iceland. RPS officials said they were confidentthey could establish a list of ships that went toIceland but not what they did after 1979. If atrawlerman left the industry after 1979 he wouldonly be eligible under the scheme if the relevantboat had been converted for types of fishingwork other than in Icelandic waters. However, RPSofficials said it was proving difficult to ascertainwhether a boat had been converted. It wouldalso be difficult for the claimant trawlerman to


provide proof of conversion. They said Ministersshould be warned about the problem. It wasagreed that a submission should be sent to theSecretary of State linking the problem to thepossible increase in the costs of the scheme. DTIofficials said that the BFA had not been quite sofrank with them as they might have been aboutwhat happened to the deep-sea trawling industryafter 1979. The meeting noted that the tradepublication 'Fishing News' had a list of trawlersreturning to port and where they had been. Themeeting agreed that officials would check thepublication's archives. The meeting noted that anumber of trawlermen were unhappy as they hadalready had their claims rejected due to thedifficulties in identifying whether a particularvessel had sailed to Iceland, and there were likelyto be stories about it soon in the local press forthe port areas. That might be a convenient 'peg'on which to hang the submission to the Minister.The notes of the meeting recorded that officialsneeded to get Ministers 'on their side' and toagree to all the rules.

The notes of the meeting record that officialswould have to advise Ministers of the possibleoverspend if they simply paid everyone whofished in Iceland, no matter what. They wouldalso have to advise that the Finance, Resourceand Management (FRM) section of DTI would notcountenance them just paying out without anylimits. They could also add that the scheme wasset up in a hurry, at the insistence of Ministers,and that they were still having discussions withthe BFA right up until the days before the schemeopened. They also knew more about the trawlerindustry than they did at the beginning and thatwas why some of the problems had arisen. RPSsuggested that it might be worth looking at thenotes of the meeting with the BFA before thescheme opened to see what had been decided. Apolicy official made it clear that nothing hadbeen agreed at that meeting, they had simply

listened to what they had to say, without makingany promises at all. They discussed whether acopy of the guidance should go to the BFA. Whileit was agreed they should have a copy of the finaldocument officials should take care to ensurethey did not give the impression that they wererrevising the rules, but were simply iinterpretingthem to ensure clarity. There should not be anycconsultation with them; the new guidance wassimply to iinform them.

27/02/01 The secretary of the Grimsby BFAwrote to a policy official. In that letter shedescribed as appalling the decision to refusecompensation to a former trawlerman fromGrimsby because he took work on a trawlersailing out of Australia rather than go on thebenefit system.

20/03/01 The secretary of the AberdeenBFA emailed a policy official. He said he wasdisappointed to see serious faults anddiscrepancies in the scheme. It was clear thatsituation had developed as a direct consequenceof Ministers receiving and responding to invalidinformation from unqualified sources in the formof advice, instructions and personal opinionsfrom deckhands unqualified to comment onindustrial relations or maritime matters of suchimportance. There was no shortage of bona fideadvice from experienced and qualified marinepersonnel fully prepared to contribute to thedebate. A policy official replied the same day. Hesaid when the scheme rules were drawn up theprevious year Ministers and officials took carefulaccount of advice and information from a widerange of different sources, including experiencedand qualified marine personnel.

17/04/01 In the course of an exchange ofemails between policy officials concerning thedefinition of an Icelandic water trawlerman, oneofficial said that they could be quite clear abouthow they at official level originally intended the


scheme rules to be interpreted. The definition ofan Icelandic water trawlerman was quite carefullyconstructed to meet the demands of the BFAwho had consistently argued that the closure ofIcelandic waters dealt a fatal blow to the viabilityof the whole distant water industry. That was notjust intended for those vessels that happened tohave trawled in Icelandic waters in the period justprior to the closure, but also to address theconcerns that both they and the Treasury had tosee a set of rules that targeted the payments aseffectively as possible and allowed for claims tobe properly validated. They had had numerousdiscussions with the Minister of State and hadexchanged emails with his office about variousaspects of the scheme rules before they werefinalised. He was sure that the definition of anIcelandic trawlerman must have come up at somepoint, although he was doubtful whetheranything specific would have been recorded inwriting. The rules themselves had been clearedwith the Secretary of State who had approvedthem having been assured by the Minister ofState that the BFA were content with them,which the official believed they had been at thetime. However, he did not think they had evergone into the level of detail as they were thendoing.

23/04/01 Policy officials discussed a draft ofoperational rules for the scheme to assist RPS. Inattempting to clarify who would qualify as anIcelandic trawlerman the draft said that shore-based work on an Icelandic trawler, for example,repairing the boat or its nets, did not count aswork as an Icelandic trawlerman. In clarifying thedefinition of a 'relevant break' the draft notedthat it would frequently be a key factor indetermining the amount of compensation. Arelevant break was one which was over twelveweeks during which the claimant was in paidemployment other than as an Icelandic watertrawlerman. Breaks between voyages, defined as

breaks between voyages on vessels on the DTIlist, of twelve weeks or less could be discounted.It did not matter how many such breaks therewere or what claimants did in such breaks. Breaksof more than twelve weeks were discounted onlyif they were satisfied that the claimant did nopaid work for any employer during any part ofthe break period. Work on a vessel not on theDTI list was not a relevant break if it took place ina period of twelve weeks or less betweenvoyages on vessels that were on the DTI list. Thedraft provided some examples of what did anddid not break continuity. Time spent in prison didnot break continuity of service as the prisonerwas not doing paid work for an employer, butwork on repairs to an Icelandic boat in harbourdid break continuity of service as it was paidwork for an employer. Fulfilling duties in thearmed forces, in the Royal Naval Reserve orNational Service did not break continuity as itwas not paid employment for an employer.

The draft operational rules, in one example,explained that a man had a period exceedingtwelve weeks between voyages on an Icelandicwater trawler but part of the time he wasemployed working on repairs to the vessel inharbour. If that period could be deducted thebreak would be under twelve weeks and so wouldnot be a relevant break. The work in harbour waspaid work for an employer and did not count asworking as an Icelandic trawlerman. The breakwas thus a relevant break and the period of claimran from the end of that break. Another exampleconcerned a man who had a long break becausehe was in prison. That did not break continuitybecause he had not done paid work for anemployer. Time in prison counted towards timeworking as an Icelandic trawlerman. In taking onboard comments on the draft made bycolleagues the author of the draft pointed outthat a lot of the questions asked by RPS reduceddown to 'did they have to apply the rules even in


difficult cases?'. The draft aimed at telling themthat the answer was 'Yes'.

A policy official saw an article in the Hull DailyMail in which the Minster of State was reportedto have said in relation to the scheme that thesystem had to be more flexible. Other policyofficials wondered whether the Minister hadreally said that. The Minister's office thenconfirmed by email that the Minister hadinformed them that he had said that.

19/06/01 A policy official sent a submissionto the new Minister of State. It said that theprospect of longer timescales and also the way inwhich the scheme rules impacted in practice hadgiven rise to concerns in the local media coveringthe fishing ports and their MPs, in particular thereferring Member and the Member for Hull Westand Hessle. Those concerns centred on threemain points. Firstly, compensation payments werenot going through fast enough; second, thereferring Member was concerned that paymentswere mainly going to Hull and few to Grimsby;and, finally, a contention that the rules of thescheme acted to exclude some formertrawlermen who deserved compensation, inparticular those who fished after 1979.

17/07/01 The referring Member sent a faxto the new Secretary of State that concerned theproblems that had arisen in the administration ofthe compensation scheme. Among the manypoints he made he said there was a majorproblem over breaks in service. Those could arisefrom a whole series of causes - engineering orrepair work on the vessel, Lloyd's survey lay-ups,illness, injury, family illness and holidays allneeded to be allowed for. It would beunreasonable not to do so. Yet there was anotherproblem in Grimsby which should also beaccepted as not producing breaks in service.When an owner had no vessels sailing to Iceland,where a vessel was overcrewed, or where there

was a disciplinary offence, fishermen wererequired to work on North Sea or middle watervessels, sometimes run by the same owner, butoften on just any vessel. They had no choice. Ifthey refused they lost their jobs. The Fishermen'sEmployment Office on the dock required themto take any vessel available or lose their benefit.That was a basic part of the conditions ofemployment for distant water trawlermen. Fail toobserve it and the trawlerman was out of a job. Itcould not, therefore, be regarded as a break orused as an excuse to shorten service or disqualify.He also said that all kinds of anomalies had arisenfrom decisions. RPS and the Government had toexamine payments already made and comparethem with cases refused so as to ensureconsistency. Some trawlermen had been refusedfor being on vessels which had since been addedto the list. They were not told of that change.Some had been paid whose vessels were not onthe list while others on the same vessels had notbeen paid. Some had been paid who never wentnear Iceland. Individuals who worked after 1979 infishing were paid up to 19 February 2001. Othersin the same position were then being held back.Ensuring consistency was a big job. Yet it was theonly safeguard against complaints ofmaladministration. The Member concluded thatMinisters should be aware that the fishing bushtelegraph carried information about everyinconsistency far and wide. Unless DTI could takeclear, consistent, decisions and ensure promptand efficient administration it would create ahuge sense of injustice and render itself veryvulnerable to action on maladministration orjudicial review.

Policy officials sent a briefing paper to theMinister and Secretary of State that also attachedbackground papers. The briefing paper also dealtwith some frequently raised issues among whichwere breaks in service. It pointed out that MPshad been asking for certain breaks in service to


be discounted but that was not possible underthe scheme rules, which had anyway been madesignificantly more generous in that regard thanoriginally intended before the scheme opened.The BFA had raised some concerns about theissue of breaks in service at a meeting withofficials before the scheme opened. They hadargued that the eligibility criteria should notexclude former trawlermen who had periods ofwork on vessels that trawled in Icelandic waters atcertain times during the year but in other watersat other times (for example, during the wintermonths, when the exceptionally harsh weatherconditions in Icelandic waters prevented somevessels from going there). In response to that thescheme rules were amended to make clear thatall former trawlermen who had continuousperiods of work on vessels which made voyagesto Icelandic waters would be potentially eligible,even if the voyages those vessels made were notexclusively to Icelandic waters. Service on vesselsthat never trawled in Icelandic waters, however,did not count under the scheme (unless doneduring a break of less than twelve weeks betweenvoyages on qualifying vessels). Some Grimsbymembers of the BFA appeared to suggest thatthey would like eligibility extended to all distantwater trawlermen or even to middle watertrawlermen as well, regardless whether or not thevessels on which they worked ever fished inIcelandic waters but that would have beenoutside the parameters of the scheme as agreedwith the Treasury.

The briefing paper noted that the BFA had alsobeen concerned about between-voyage gaps ofmore than twelve weeks breaking continuity bothfor the purposes of the two year qualifyingperiod and for the purposes of calculating theamount of payment due. They argued for 'specialexceptions' that would justify a longer between-voyage gap being disregarded. It had finally beenagreed by the then Secretary of State that all

gaps, of whatever duration, should bedisregarded, unless the former trawlerman tookother work outside the industry, in which casethe twelve week rule would stand. Thereforeunder the scheme rules, continuity was brokenonly by any between-voyage gap of more thantwelve weeks during which any other work(including shore work or other fishing on non-Icelandic water vessels) was done. All other gapscounted as part of the period of continuousservice as an Icelandic water trawlerman,regardless of what was done during them, whichcould include periods of sickness, injury,'walkabout', training, national service or eventerms in prison. However, one effect of that hadbeen that some former trawlerman who hadfifteen or twenty years' service on Icelandic watervessels and then did some shore work or fishedon non-Icelandic water vessels for a time beforereturning to the industry found that they did notqualify for a payment, or qualified for only areduced amount, as their work outside theindustry broke their continuity for the purposesof the scheme rules. MPs had identified a numberof such cases and had asked that such breaks bediscounted. The paper also discussed the DTI's listof vessels. Officials accepted that when thescheme opened their list of Icelandic watervessels had not been wholly accurate. There hadbeen insufficient time available to carry out thedetailed research required. That might have led toerrors in both directions but they would notreclaim payments, even if later informationsuggested they should not have been made. Sincethen they had made strenuous efforts anddevoted considerable resources to ensure theaccuracy of the list by checking reliable publishedsources.

18/07/01 Officials also provided furtherinformation as to what issues the individual portMPs might raise at a meeting with the MPs in asubmission to the Secretary of State. The


referring Member had made a number of points,among which were breaks in service. Officialsbelieved that the rules relating to them weresimply not understood. The BFA and MPs hadstipulated that breaks in service should breakcontinuity but that was later relaxed at theirrequest. Only work outside the industry or workon non-Icelandic water vessels broke continuity -not periods of sickness, injury, spells in prison etc.Officials had been more or less asked to ignorecertain breaks in service where there was a'deserving case'. However, if they 'bent' the rulesfor one, then there would be no justification fornot doing the same for any other person. No onehad denied that there were some very 'deserving'people who had fallen just the wrong side of therules. The Member for Hull West and Hessle hadalso raised the issue of breaks in service and againofficials believed that the rules had not beenunderstood. It was just unfortunate that somepeople took shore work - for very valid reasons -but it still broke continuity under the schemerules. He had also referred to hardship cases andquoted many cases of widows, people in severefinancial difficulties and those who wereterminally ill. They were paying those who were illas quickly as possible but could not simply paythose who 'needed the money' regardless of thescheme rules. If there had been no compensationscheme then they would have had the sameproblem. The Member for Hull West and Hessleclaimed that the rules had been changed and thatthat had happened while he was away on holiday.That was not true; nothing had changed since thescheme had first been set up. Officials pointedout, however, that concepts of what the rrulesmeant iin ppractice had changed as individuals whowere expecting to receive a payment had beenrefused because they had fallen the wrong sideof the line.

At the meeting with the MPs, the Secretary ofState said the Government had consulted the

BFA when they established the scheme rules andhad carefully considered their views. She realised,however, that there were certain cases that didnot fall within the rules. The MPs thus had anopportunity to tell her and the Minister of Stateabout their concerns. The Member forCleethorpes said that there were several issues,one of which was how breaks in service weredefined. There had been a wrong interpretationof what the scheme was supposed to do. Thereferring Member said that he had faxed hisconcerns to the Secretary of State the previousday. Some vessels had been forced to fish in theNorth Sea and that should not be counted as abreak in service. He required clarity on someaspects of the scheme. The Members forAberdeen Central and Fleetwood asked forconsistency in the application of the rules andthe Member for Hull West and Hessle said thatspeed was not the main thing but accuracy.

Following the meeting with port MPs on 18 July2001, the Secretary of State wanted a furthermeeting with them to cover those points forwhich there had been insufficient time that day.She also sent an email to policy officials. She said'I'm quite worried by what I heard this morning.There is clearly a gulf between the expectation ofthe scheme - compensation for all trawlermenwho lost their livelihood because of the 'CodWars' (which seemed to mean all fishermen whohad ever fished in Icelandic waters) - and theactual scheme rules. But there is also the issue ofwhether we are actually being consistent in ourtreatment of trawlermen under the schemerules'. She and the Minister of State needed tosee an analysis of the different groups thatincluded trawlermen who left the industryaltogether - for unemployment; or for non-fishing jobs; trawlermen who left Icelandic fishingand went into other fishing - a) on non-Icelandicvessels; b) on converted ex-Icelandic vessels; c)on non-converted Icelandic vessels. The Secretary


of State wanted to understand how each group(and there could be other categories) was treatedunder DTI's view of the scheme rules and why.She said 'I think it would also be helpful ifofficials were to meet the port MPs again, topursue other points of detail, so that the MPscan let us have a summary note before Nigel (theMinister of State) and I try to resolve theproblem. I must say that from what I've heardthis morning, I think we will have to try very hardindeed to find some more money. A nightmare,but so is the alternative. It might also help tohave chapter and verse on some of the caseswhere the MPs were claiming inconsistenttreatment - with officials' view on whether thereare different circumstances to explain differentoutcomes, or whether earlier cases may havebeen wrongly decided'.

30/07/01 The Secretary of State's officeemailed policy officials and thanked them for thenote of the meeting with the port MPs of 24 July2001. In consequence the Secretary of Staterequired a full submission on how they couldmove forward. She was aware that any furtherinvestigation of the options would have resourceimplications so it would be helpful if thesubmission could include an indication of thecost of the various options and how the moneycould be found.

31/07/01 Policy officials sent a submissionto the Secretary and Minister of State on the wayforward. The submission discussed the cost ofvarious rule changes that had been suggested. Atparagraph 8 the submission discussed the issue ofwhether voyages on vessels not on the list ofIcelandic water trawlers should not breakcontinuity but should count towards it. If thatsuggested change were adopted it would go along way to severing the link between thescheme and the 'Cod Wars' settlement. For thatreason if Ministers were attracted to that optionit would need to be put to the accounting

officer. In effect so long as a man made aspecified number of voyages on Icelandic watertrawlers his entire fishing history would oftencount towards the calculation of compensation.In practice such a change would more or less haveto be combined with abandoning the 1979 cut-off. Otherwise all those who continued any sortof fishing after 1979 would be disqualified. PortMPs would then be even less happy than atpresent. The financial cost would almost certainlybe enormous. It could as much as double thecost of the scheme. As to the point aboutwhether voyages made from overseas ports towhich trawlermen were posted by theiremployers should not break continuity, officialsbelieved the number of such cases to be in theorder of 100. If that were correct the financialimplications would not be great but it wouldrepresent a further major step away from theobjective of the scheme and would make itharder to justify not making the more significantchange of counting service on all non Icelandicvessels.

06/08/01 The Secretary of State's officeemailed policy officials and said she had seen thesubmission of 31 July and the comments of theMinister of State of 2 August 2001 (which werenot on file and which we have not thereforeseen). The Secretary of State did not yet want tomake a decision but preferred to discuss furtherwith the Minister of State and officials. She haddetailed and general comments. As to whethervoyages on vessels not on the list of Icelandicwater trawlers should not break continuity butshould count towards it she commented thatthat approach looked untenable. More generallyshe commented that there was a real mismatchbetween expectations and what the schemeactually delivered - as well as some ambiguities inthe rules of the scheme. She would therefore liketo seek advice from counsel on the risks ofjudicial review.


31/08/01 The legal section sent furtherinstructions to counsel to advise in conferenceon 4 September. They told counsel that five rulechanges were 'on the table' in isolation or incombination. Two of those changes were:

• Work on vessels which were not Icelandicwater vessels should not count towards thequalifying period for compensation but did notbreak continuity.

• Work on vessels fishing out of foreignports should not count towards the qualifyingperiod for compensation but did not breakcontinuity so long as their employer had postedmen to such ports.

counsel was asked to advise in conference as tothe risk of successful legal challenge to thecompensation scheme if any one of six optionslabelled A-F to change the rules wereimplemented. Option E was that work on vesselsother than Icelandic water vessels should not becounted as other work which, if done during abreak from work on Icelandic water vessels ofmore than twelve weeks, would break continuity.

The effect of option E would be that thecontinuous period of work could be treated asnot being broken by 'relevant breaks' of longerthan twelve weeks from work on Icelandic watervessels, where the paid work done during thosebreaks was other fishing work such as work doneout of non-UK ports. Since breaks of longer thantwelve weeks where no other paid work wasdone could count towards the continuous periodof work (if, where possible, evidence of theabsence of other work during the break wasprovided) such fishing work could effectivelyattract compensation. Another effect of thechange would be that a sufficiently long periodof work on Icelandic water vessels would not becancelled out by a 'relevant break' of longer thantwelve weeks (where the work in question wasother fishing work) followed by a period of

Icelandic water vessel work which was not longenough to qualify for compensation. Equally, atrawlerman who had a long period of servicefollowed by a relevant break of more than twelveweeks in which he did other fishing followed by ashorter 'last continuous period of work of at leasttwo years' would be compensated in respect ofthe whole of that time. Counsel was referred toparagraphs 8 and 10 in the 31 July submission tothe Secretary of State and paragraphs 13 and 14 inthe 26 July submission. The legal section took theview that options E and F were matters of policywhich could be taken up without legal risk.Making such changes without making one of themain changes sought by the BFA could leavethem open to criticism, however.

August 01 The BFA Aberdeen sent to policyofficials a document entitled 'Practical Pointers'.The principal points made by the documentrepresented what would have been put to theGovernment had such an opportunity been madeavailable to the trawlermen of Aberdeen. Point 1related to the 1979 cut-off point and point 2concerned the rule about two years' continuousservice. Point 2b said that the twelve week breakin service rule created unnecessary problems. Itcould normally be accounted for in most casesvia prolonged injury time, a common event in ahigh risk industry. Promotional development ofthree to four months at nautical college,depending on qualifying time, although that hadbeen recognised and accepted by administrators.To undergo major repair or maintenance work toa deep-sea trawler, unlike modern timescales,could be a lengthy procedure and it often took acrewman many more weeks to finally rejoin hisship and shipmates and that rendered the twelveweek rule of little use or relevance.

04/09/01 The conference with counseldiscussed option E and noted that it wasnecessary to consider continuity in connectionwith it. Although the twelve week break had an


arbitrary flavour they did have a good reason forsome such rule, in that men must have beendependent on, and committed to, Icelandic waterfishing work in order to be eligible forcompensation. Additionally, it was the BFA whohad suggested that anything over twelve weekswould mean that men were effectively out of theindustry. No one had been suggesting that therewas anything wrong with the twelve week rulealthough it had produced some hard cases suchas the man who was onshore to look after his sickwife and who did some onshore work. Althoughthat was a hard case it was not the kind whichwould have been reasonably foreseeable, suchthat the decision to make the rule could be saidto be perverse. The point of option E (saying thatwork on vessels other than Icelandic watervessels did not break continuity and qualified forcompensation) was to alleviate the hard case of aman who had a long career on Icelandic watervessels but who was unable to establishcontinuity in the relevant five year period. If theamendment were made it would create bizarreanomalies like one of the case examples given tocounsel. The example given was of a man whohad spent his whole career working on inshoreand middle water vessels most of which did notgo to Icelandic waters at all. However, he madeone trip towards the start of his career and one in1978 towards the end of his career on vessels thathad at some time made a couple of trips toIcelandic waters (not when he was on them) andso qualified as Icelandic water vessels. Withoutthe change as suggested by option E he had novalid claim to compensation. However, if option Ewere implemented all his voyages between thetwo trips on Icelandic water vessels would counttowards compensation so that he would receive asignificant amount despite not having been toIcelandic waters and not fished on any vesselwhich was significantly affected by their closure.They were entitled to take that into accountwhen considering option E. They were also

entitled to treat the fact that the option wouldweaken the link with the 'Cod War' settlement asan important policy consideration.

Another option would be to discount otherfishing work when assessing whether continuitywas broken but only to compensate in respect ofIcelandic water vessel work. That would avoidovercompensation of trawlermen such as the onein the example and alleviate the hard caseproblem but the link to the 'Cod Wars' would stillbe weakened. It would also be very expensiveand administratively difficult to compensate inrespect of each voyage on an Icelandic watervessel. A challenge by someone excluded as aresult of not taking option E would be that thedecision to exclude them was perverse. Onecould not say that such a challenge woulddefinitely fail - its strength would depend on itsfacts. At that stage it appeared, however, thatchallenges of that kind ought to be capable ofbeing defended. It was accordingly defensible notto take option E. The decision to take that optionwas substantially one of policy.

15/10/01 The Secretary of State wrote tothe Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She said thatDTI had received numerous representations fromport MPs and other representatives of the formertrawlermen about certain aspects of the schemethat they considered were operating unfairly.Having considered the issues fully and in the lightof legal advice she had concluded that theeligibility criteria of the scheme should bechanged. The total cost of the scheme could goup to around £35 million - around £10 millionmore than they had thought. She was prepared tofind the additional resources necessary to fundthe rule changes from other DTI priorities. Shehoped that, in the light of that, the ChiefSecretary felt able to agree to her proceeding asshe had suggested.


22/10/01 The Chief Secretary to theTreasury replied. He agreed that, given counsel'sopinion, it would be pragmatic to relax thecriteria as suggested rather than face the costlyexperience of a judicial review if the likelihoodwas that a case would be won. However, heexpected it to be a once and for all change thatdid not lead to further #challenges by claimantsat the new boundaries of the compensationscheme. In order to ensure that that was the casehe asked the Secretary of State to look at boththe presentation and the impact of the changes,before making any announcement.

30/10/01 Policy officials saw an article in theGrimsby Telegraph in which the referring Memberwas quoted as saying that the extra £10 million forthe scheme was very good news. He went on tosay that there were two problems whichremained unresolved which meant thattrawlermen could not rejoice at that stage. Breaksin service were causing problems for somepeople. Fishermen who had fished Iceland couldhave been put on North Sea vessels and that wascounting against them. It was being seen as abreak in service when in fact it was part of thecondition of service. The second problem wasthat many vessels which fished the Faroe Islandsalso fished Iceland. If they fished north of theFaroes they were in Icelandic waters. That sameday the office of the Secretary of State emailed apolicy official and asked whether the issues raisedby the referring Member in that article werereally a problem and did they involve furtherchanges of the rules or just changes in the list ofvessels? They required advice as they (officials orthe Minister) might need to make it clear to thereferring Member that there would be no furtherchanges to the rules. The policy official repliedthat the issues raised could well be a problem.Further and better particulars would be providedshortly. The Secretary of State's office respondedthat they required advice urgently because it

appeared sensible to stamp on any new requestsbefore the trawlermen turned it into a newcampaign. Officials continued to discuss the twoissues by email. They recognised that theargument that vessels which went to the Faroesshould be regarded as Icelandic water trawlerscould give them another significant problem.They needed to cover that and the breaks inservice when submitting the rule changes forMinisterial approval. The Minister of State wouldnot be sympathetic to further concessions.However, they needed to make sure they had aclear, Ministerially-agreed, and robust position.The legal section would be advised so that theyhad early warning though they did not thinkthere could be a risk of challenge as their policyand practice had always been clear andconsistent. As attention would from then oninevitably focus increasingly on the issue ofbreaks in service they required an update on theposition regarding access to National Insurancerecords.

31/10/01 The discussion continued. A policyofficial noted that the Member for Hull West andHessle had written in requesting a change in therules so that periods on invalid vessels should notstop someone being paid or paid less. The caseinvolved a break of about a year on non-validvessels during 1972-73. Another letter had justarrived from the Member for Waveney. Hewanted a change so that fishing out of Lowestofton non-valid vessels should not count either.They needed to make clear to Ministers that theport MPs were not going to give up and go awayon some of these issues and that it would benecessary to take a robust line on no further rulechanges.

15/11/01 A policy official sent a briefing tothe Minister of State in readiness for theMinister's meeting with port MPs on 21November 2001. The briefing explained that on26 October 2001 the Secretary of State had


announced two major changes to thecompensation scheme. First, former trawlermenwho fished on former Icelandic water trawlersafter 31 December 1979 would no longer bedisqualified from receiving compensation.Secondly, periods of service on former Icelandicwater vessels of less than two years which tookplace between 1974 and 1979 and after a relevantbreak from working on those vessels, would nolonger disqualify claimants. The official notedthat the Government was satisfied that thescheme was properly targeted and was notprepared to make any further rule changes.Further briefing on other points that might beraised by the port MPs were attached as anannex. The further briefing in the annex dealt,firstly, with the impact of the change in thescheme rules. The briefing noted that as theindustry was running down a number oftrawlermen were forced, for various reasons, totake work on non-Icelandic water vessels.According to the scheme rules payment wascalculated on the last period of continuousservice on Icelandic water vessels in which therewere no 'relevant breaks' of more than twelveweeks. A 'relevant break' was classed as a breakduring which other work was done. That meantany work other than on vessels that trawled inIcelandic waters. In effect that meant that anumber of former trawlermen who had manyyears' unbroken service on Icelandic water vesselsended up receiving no payment at all as they didnot have a two year consecutive period onIcelandic water vessels leading up to their finalvoyage. As the majority of those breaks occurredafter 1974 they could then be ignored and morepeople would receive a payment.

21/11/01 The port MPs met the Minister ofState, policy officials and representatives fromRPS. The Member for Hull West and Hesslewelcomed the recent changes but said that therewere still minor problems, equally valid to the

claimant. Continuity/breaks in service were still aproblem as were invalid vessels. The continuityclause was a problem for most port MPs whoshared their examples. A problem for Aberdeenand Grimsby was the 'pool' system where menwere required by employers to take the next jobthat came up irrespective of whether it was on anIcelandic water vessel or not - this meant thatmany had found it difficult to satisfy the schemecriteria. The referring Member said that trips toAustralia should not count towards the £1,000 peryear but should not break continuity. TheMember for Aberdeen Central said that the MPswere not requesting a further change in thescheme rules but that there should be scope forflexibility in the interpretation of the criteria and,in particular, to take on board circumstances thatled to breaks in service.

18/12/01 The legal section sent a letter ofinstruction to counsel. They summarised the rulesof the scheme regarding continuity for counsel.They concluded that summary with an example.A break from work on Icelandic water vessels of10 weeks during which a trawlerman did tenweeks' work as a window cleaner would not breakcontinuity, whereas a break of thirteen weeksduring which a trawlerman did one day's work asa window cleaner would break continuity. Theoriginal proposal for what would constitute abreak in continuity was a period of eight weeksrather than twelve, regardless of what was doneduring the period. The BFA had argued that it wasoften the case that men were away fromIcelandic water work for longer than eight weeks,for many legitimate reasons. They had suggestedthat there should be a list of possible reasons forbeing away from work and that breaks duringwhich those things were done which were longerthan eight weeks would not break continuity. Itwas felt that having a list of permitted reasonsfor breaks would be too difficult to administerand that it would be too difficult to draw up a


comprehensive list in advance, leaving scope formatters to be disputed later. Ministers thereforedecided to have only one activity, which if doneat all during a break of longer than twelve weeks,would break continuity. That activity was 'workother than work as an Icelandic watertrawlerman'. Doing anything else during a breakwould not break continuity provided there wasno 'other work' done during the break.

The legal section explained to counsel that theythought there might be a risk of challenge to thedecision not to count the prior service onIcelandic water vessels of someone who workedfor more than twelve weeks on other vessels atthe direction of their employer, when the priorservice of someone who spent eight years inprison was not discounted and their time inprison was actually compensated. That decisioncould be regarded as irrational.

20/12/01 The legal section held a telephoneconversation with counsel. On compensationpayable to prisoners he agreed that the positionlooked unattractive and that it threw up apotential irrationality challenge. However, anapplicant for judicial review would have theproblem of establishing locus standi to bring achallenge. No one was being deprived ofanything by the application of the rule it justresulted in more payments being made thanmight otherwise be the case. There was definitelyscope for a challenge, however, and if counselwere advising an applicant, it would be to make achallenge based on the overallunfairness/irrationality of the scheme which washighlighted by the contrast between prisonersand those who were sent by their employers towork on non-Icelandic water vessels (a failure totreat like cases equally).

A DTI official wrote to her counterpart at thethen Inland Revenue (the Revenue) about DTI'srequirements for information about National

Insurance contributions for certain claimantsunder the compensation scheme. She explainedthat a maximum payment would relate to atwenty year period and explained aboutcontinuous employment and relevant breaksunder the scheme rules and that the men wereonly compensated for their last period ofcontinuous work. Although all fishermen hadbreaks between voyages, not many were relevantbreaks and thus did not break the continuousperiod of employment and did not affect theamount of compensation to which the man wasentitled. The official explained the twelve weekrule and that a break over twelve weeks in whichpaid work other than as an Icelandic watertrawlerman was done would break continuity ofemployment. They had a number of claimantswith breaks of more than twelve weeks but hadno information about whether or not they tookany paid employment during that break.Accordingly, they did not know whether or notthere was a break in continuity for the calculationof compensation. That was why they soughtinformation about National Insurancecontributions. She hoped the information shehad provided was sufficient to allow the Revenueto identify the information they held that wouldbe useful to DTI. She said the problem that DTIofficials had was that they did not know whatdetails the Revenue held and how difficult itmight be to provide DTI with particular details.DTI knew the name, National Insurance numberand the precise period for which they soughtinformation and they required detailed records ofany National Insurance contribution made orcredited during those periods. In some cases evensummary annual information might help. The DTIofficial then provided a theoretical example as tohow she and her colleagues planned to make useof the information. She confirmed that theremight be around 500 claimants for which theysought information.


200214/01/02 The Chairman of the Hull BFAwrote to the Minister of State. He said thepurpose of his letter was to express the greatconcern of the former trawlermen of Hull whowere experiencing real difficulty in the processingof their claims. One of the main reasons for thisdifficulty related to the lengths of break inservice which took them over a twelve weekperiod. The result was that many men were onlyreceiving a fraction of the money genuinely dueto them. From the first meeting on 8 September2000 that the Hull BFA attended with policyofficials and representatives from RPS, the issuehad remained unresolved ever since. A policyofficial had confirmed that breaks of up totwelve weeks would be disregarded. That officialwas advised by the Chairman that there wouldinevitably be cases of more than twelve weeks.His response was that each case would be lookedat sympathetically. At no point, in the opinion ofthe Chairman, did he confirm that breaks inservice over twelve weeks would automatically bediscounted or would lead to a reduction in thecompensation due to men. He argued that it wasreasonable to consider that a man who returnedto shore for a period in excess of twelve weeksafter working on trawlers may have had validreasons for doing so. If that were the case thenthe breaks should be counted as continuousservice. The Chairman recalled that after the 'CodWars', with the trawler fleet in rapid decline, therewere more men than trawlers and hence longeronshore breaks where the men were effectivelyunable to work but still registered as distantwater trawlermen as their records showed. Heasked the Minister to reconsider the then currentview held by RPS on the question of breaks inservice.

28/01/02 The Revenue replied to DTI's letterof 20 December 2001 concerning informationabout National Insurance contributions. The

Revenue official explained that when he had metrepresentatives from RPS in March 2001 he hadbeen told that they felt the overwhelmingmajority of claims that would be lodged had bythen been received. He had explained then, and anumber of times since, that there was nostatutory gateway between the Revenue and DTIfor the purpose that DTI sought. The only waythe Revenue could supply the informationrequired was with the informed written consentof each of the individuals concerned. He askedhow DTI proposed to obtain that consent. Itwould need to be in place and available forRevenue inspection before any transfer ofinformation could take place. One point DTI hadnot covered in its letter was the years for which itsought data. The Revenue did not usually holdtax information beyond the normal statutory sixyear period for assessing and collecting tax whichwas of no use to DTI. The only source ofinformation that might help would be individuals'National Insurance records. As he understood it,the information DTI sought would normally relateto years prior to 1975 which was the year thecomputerisation of National Insurance recordswas introduced. Prior to that the records werekept and still were in manual form. Each recordshowed the total number of weeks in each taxyear for which National Insurance contributionswere paid and the number of weeks for whichunemployment or sickness credits were awarded.But it did not hold details of employers duringthe year unless the employer was part of theGraduated Pensions Scheme and even then onlyback as far as 1961. Therefore without actuallydigging out and going through the pre-1975manual National Insurance record in each case itwas impossible to say how the recordsmaintained met DTI's requirements. The moreoptions the Revenue introduced into any reviewof the records, the longer the process would take,the greater the resource need would be, and ashe did not then know whether the Revenue


resource could be provided and, flowing fromthat, the greater the cost of the work. Since theRevenue were not resourced to carry out work onbehalf of other departments DTI would beexpected to meet the costs in full and wouldneed to confirm that in writing in advance. TheRevenue already had a considerable amount ofwork in hand and if DTI decided to take itsrequest further it would have to go before theRevenue's Approvals Board and take its chancewith all the other prospective new work.

27/02/02 A policy official emailed the legalsection concerning a letter from the Member forHull West and Hessle. They had to determinewhether 'fitting out' a vessel was a relevant breakor not. The policy official could see twoscenarios. First, a former trawlerman could havebeen working on shore 'fitting out' or paintingany old boat maybe because he was suspendedor because there was no fishing work available.Secondly, a former trawlerman could have been'fitting out' an Icelandic water vessel, as had beendescribed in the claim in question, to prepare forits next voyage and that he would have actuallysailed on it when it was ready. Up until then theyhad considered the first scenario a relevant breakbecause the former trawlerman did not haveanything to do with Icelandic water vessels.However, in the second, it did seem rather unfairto penalise a person who was actually working onan Icelandic water vessel preparing it for its nextfishing trip. That could be taken as part andparcel of working in the Icelandic water industrywhereas the first scenario could not. The policyofficial required advice. The legal section repliedthe same day. They said they thought it boileddown to whether work on Icelandic water vesselshad to be work on such vessels at sea or whethershore work on such vessels could count asqualifying service. They understood the policy tobe that no shore work counted. Paragraph 2.2 ofthe scheme rules defined a former Icelandic

water trawlerman as a person who worked aat sseaon vessels. Paragraph 2.7 said that shore-basedworkers were not former Icelandic watertrawlermen. Paragraph 3.2 defined a continuousperiod of work as work as an Icelandic watertrawlerman (i.e. work aat ssea on vessels). A relevantbreak was one bbetween vvoyages of at leasttwelve weeks during which work other than workas an Icelandic water trawlerman was done (i.e.work other than work aat ssea on vessels). Theguidance notes were less clear, in that they talkedabout work on Icelandic water trawlers, withoutspecifying that it must be at sea. They did saythat shore-based workers were not eligible toclaim but they did not refer to breaks beingbreaks 'between voyages'. Given the terms of thescheme rules and the fact that compensation wascalculated by reference to voyage dates(paragraph 3.3), the legal section thought theeffect of the rules was that the claimant's serviceon shore meant that his break was a relevantbreak. They agreed that it seemed unfair but thena great many hard cases had been created by thelines drawn in the scheme. They asked forconfirmation that their understanding of thepolicy on shore work was correct.

01/03/02 A policy official had endorsedlegal section's understanding of the policy onshore-based work, but another policy officialexpressed the view in an email that fitting out avessel for sea fishing should count as Icelandicwater fishing work which counted towardscompensation. He understood what the legalsection had said about the rules but they shouldalso apply basic rules of fairness where they wereable to do so. His understanding was that if, forexample, a boat had new engines it might takemore than twelve weeks to test them out. Theboat's chief engineer might well do that prior totaking the boat on its next trip to Icelandicwaters. To regard that as a relevant break was justasking for trouble. A relevant factor, to his mind,


was that a decision to regard such work as notbreaking continuity was quite defensible - in facthe did not think they would ever need to defendit. In addition, he imagined there would not belarge numbers of claimants in that position. Ifthey tried to hold fast to the position that suchwork constituted a break, sooner or later theywould be forced to reverse the ruling.

11/03/02 In discussing in an email a problemthat had arisen as to whether the reference in thescheme to 200 miles meant nautical or imperialmiles, a policy official recognised that, legally, thescheme rules could mean something other thanwhat they intended them to mean. The rules hadbeen put together in some haste and they wereconcerned at the time that they should be asstraightforward as possible for operational staffto work with.

12/03/02 The legal section commentedupon the 200 mile problem. They made the pointthat if there had been a conscious policy decisionthat the scheme refer to imperial rather thannautical miles then the legal section should havebeen instructed in those terms. If policy officialswere not aware at the time of the distinctionbetween nautical and imperial miles, then thereality was that the scheme had been devised ona mistaken assumption - perhaps because of aninsufficient knowledge of the fishing industry ornot consulting the appropriate people.

20/03/02 Policy officials issued a revised'Eligibility criteria and procedure for makingclaims' that superseded the version issued on 2October 2000 (see Annex A). It described acontinuous period of Icelandic water trawlingwork as one during which there was no 'relevantbreak' of more than twelve weeks. A 'relevantbreak' meant a break during which other work -i.e. work other than on vessels that trawled inIcelandic waters - was done, regardless ofwhether that other work was done for all of the

break or just part of it.

A policy official provided some 'lines to take' forthe Secretary of State for a meeting with theMember for Aberdeen Central scheduled for 13May 2002. The Member was likely to raise thepoint that trawlermen in Aberdeen worked the'pool system' which meant that they frequentlymoved between vessels and had less opportunityto build up continuous service on Icelandic watervessels. The lines to take were that that type ofsystem was not unique to Aberdeen. Trawlermenin Grimsby and Fleetwood had similar workingpatterns. The reason why those in Aberdeen hadmore broken service in the Icelandic waterindustry was that there were fewer Icelandicwater vessels. The Member was also likely to raisethe point that trawlermen should not bepenalised for having worked on non-Icelandicwater vessels when, had they been in prison, theirservice would have been counted as continuous.The line to take was that if a trawlerman left theIcelandic water industry for a period of longerthan twelve weeks and during that period he didother work, he cannot be considered to haveremained dependent on the industry for hislivelihood during that period. If he subsequentlyreturned to the industry for a continuous periodof two years or longer then clearly he becamedependent upon it again and was entitled tocompensation based on that latter period. 'Otherwork' had to include work on vessels that neverwent to Icelandic waters. Otherwise a claimantcould receive compensation for long periods ofinshore or other fishing work unrelated to theIcelandic water industry. If a trawlerman had abreak between voyages on Icelandic water vesselsbut did no other work, then he was considered tohave remained reliant on the industry throughoutregardless how long the break was and regardlesswhat he did during it. That allowed for the factthat there were many bona fide reasons whytrawlermen had long breaks between voyages


including unemployment, injury, illness,'walkabout', training etc. That generous provisiondid mean that periods in prison could counttoward continuity - but only if the individualworked in the Icelandic water industry before hissentence and returned to it immediatelyafterwards having done no other work inbetween. The Member was likely to say thatperiods of service on Icelandic water vesselsshould be aggregated and breaks disregarded. Theline to take was that the Government could notagree to that. It would constitute a major changein the scheme rules and would add unacceptablyto its cost.

13/05/02 A policy official sent a briefingnote to the Secretary of State for her meetingwith the Member for Aberdeen Central thatevening. The official recommended that theSecretary of State resisted any pressure from theMember for Aberdeen Central to make furtherchanges to the scheme rules. He said that theMember was likely to raise concerns about theway in which the scheme rules impacted onAberdeen-based trawlermen and would arguethat those rules should be changed orinterpreted 'more flexibly' to reflect their 'specialcircumstances'. In each of the four main portsinvolved in Icelandic water trawling - Hull,Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen - the industryhad certain distinctive features. However, thescheme rules were designed to be as fair aspossible to all former trawlermen affected by thesettlement of the 'Cod Wars' in the 1970sirrespective of the port out of which they fished.It would have been neither practical nor desirableto have had different rules for different ports.The net effect of the changes to the schemerules the previous autumn had been to increasethe estimated total expenditure on the schemefrom £25 million to £35 million. Actualexpenditure on the scheme to date, with only arelatively small number of claims remaining to

complete processing, was £37 million. Any furtherrule changes to make the qualifying criteria moregenerous would clearly increase expenditure stillfurther. He therefore recommended that theSecretary of State stand by her earlier view thatthe changes made the previous autumn shouldrepresent a final settlement.

15/05/02 A policy official emailedcolleagues concerning a telephone conversationshe had had that morning with the adjudicator,who informed her about a meeting he had hadwith the Member for Aberdeen Central. TheMember had told him that he was not asking theSecretary of State to change the rules but toreinterpret them. The adjudicator told him thatthe way in which he wanted to reinterpret therules was not possible. The Member replied thathe was more or less aware of that but he had totry. The adjudicator had also warned that theport MPs were considering an application forjudicial review over the scheme because it wasflawed. Part of the case would be that DTI hadnot taken the 'pool system' into account. Thepolicy official stated that as her colleagues knew,they were perfectly aware of the 'pool system'when they did the ex gratia arrangements and sowere fully aware of it for the scheme. She hadthanked the adjudicator for the warning and toldhim they had been warned about the possibilityof judicial review previously and had sought legaladvice on the matter. The purpose of her emailwas to advise that the matter had raised its headagain. She said 'I have not copied it to legal atthis stage in case they start worrying about it'.On 16 May 2002 she emailed the office of theSecretary of State to ascertain whether there hadbeen any feedback from the meeting betweenthe Member for Aberdeen Central and theSecretary of State.

21/05/02 The Member for Hull West andHessle wrote to the adjudicator andacknowledged that the adjudicator would have to


reject the appeal of a constituent for reasons heunderstood. He did not want to bog down ascheduled meeting with the Minister in respectof that issue as there were far more importantissues to argue. In particular, the distant watertrawlermen from Hull who were losing vastamounts of money because they were sent tofish in middle waters for sometimes very shortperiods during the course of a long career.

23/05/02 The office of the Secretary ofState emailed a reply to the policy official. Theysaid the Member for Aberdeen Central had raisedthe case of one of his constituents who had beenpaid for all of his service because an eight yearspell in prison had not counted as a break inservice. Another constituent had been obliged byhis employer to work in a non-Icelandic watervessel for a period of time and that had beencounted as a break in service. Unsurprisingly, theMember thought that situation somewhat unfair.The Secretary of State explained that shethought there was very little they could do inthat situation as that was the way the rules weredrafted. In discussing the response to theMember's constituent the Secretary of Statewanted a 'soothing' reply and the draft run pastthe Member before it was sent.

10/06/02 An official sent a briefing to theMinister of State in preparation for the meetingthe Minister was to have later that day with theport MPs. The briefing explained that the MPswould raise the issue of breaks in service andexplained the meaning of 'relevant break' underthe scheme rules. The briefing said that in effectthat had meant that a small number of formertrawlermen who had many years' unbrokenservice on Icelandic water vessels ended upreceiving a very small payment as their continuitywas broken by fishing on invalid vessels. Thatsame day the Minister of State met the port MPstogether with policy officials and RPSrepresentatives. The Member for Cleethorpes

explained that some former trawlermen hadmany years' service on Icelandic water vessels buttheir continuity had been broken towards theend of their career by some short trips on non-valid vessels. That meant that they only receivedpayment for a couple of years. That situation hadbeen made worse by the fact that a number offormer trawlermen had been paid who neverwent to Iceland at all. The Minister explained thatthere were no 'fishing passports' and that waswhy the scheme had had to rely on the vesselson which people had sailed. In addition, Treasurycostings were done on the assumptions thatbreaks of over twelve weeks would breakcontinuity. The Member for Hull West and Hesslereplied that former trawlermen were sent to suchplaces as Lowestoft to fish by the thenEmployment Department otherwise they wouldhave lost their unemployment benefit. Heemphasised that that would not require any rulechanges, which the MPs realised would bedifficult, but an extension of the list that alreadyexisted of allowable reasons for a break incontinuity. The Member for Aberdeen Centralsaid that paragraph 3.2 of the scheme rules madethings difficult. He confirmed that trawlermenhad no control over where they went to fish andunemployment benefit would have been lost ifthey had not complied. As a lawyer, he wasconcerned with equity - payments had beenmade to people who had had long breaks awayfrom the industry (such as prison) and that wasunfair. He considered that the rules should besubject to a judicial review as they had not beenbrought in by way of Statutory Instrument.However, he considered that an addition could bemade to the 'exemptions' in the rules wherebypeople with many years' service on Icelandicwater vessels could have their invalid servicecounted. A policy official explained there wereno such exemptions in the rules. The only thingthat broke continuity was 'work other thanIcelandic water trawlermen' and that that


included fishing on non-Icelandic water vessels.The Minister confirmed that to discount invalidservice in the way suggested would need achange in the rules and the Secretary of Statehad made clear she was not prepared to makeany more changes. The Member for AberdeenCentral replied that he did not think that it waspossible to stop legal action as the scheme wasnot being targeted at those who were meant toreceive payments and that the scheme would beopen to ridicule if that ever got into the papers.The Member for Hull West and Hessle did notwant to open the floodgates; they just wantedthose few cases to be looked at again.

21/06/02 On 21 June 2002 officials from theMinister of State's office emailed policy officialsconcerning a letter from the referring Member tothe Minister that related to Mrs A and required areply. He had sent the Minister a copy of hisletter to the scheme's adjudicator of 17 Juneconcerning the decision to reject Mrs A's appealagainst the award made to her. He pointed out inthat letter that the Icelandic water vessel onwhich Mr A had sailed in 1972 required a refit thatlasted more than twelve weeks and Mr A hadnever ceased or had any intention to cease hisemployment as an Icelandic water trawlerman. Hehad had no choice but to accept whatever vesselwas offered to him during the period of his ownship's refit and thus remained an Icelandic watertrawlerman during that period. His service as anIcelandic water trawlerman was not breached bythe fact of the vessel's refit and the benefitregulations at that time meant that he must takewhatever vessel he was given during the period ofthe refit. The referring Member therefore viewedit as incorrect to interpret the period of the refitof Mr A's ship as a break in service under theregulations, as well as being manifestly unjust.

26/06/02 The adjudicator replied to thereferring Member concerning Mrs A's appeal. Hesaid that while he understood that Mr A had

taken the break from Icelandic water work in 1972'for perfectly understandable reasons', that breakconstituted a 'relevant break' under the rules ofthe scheme. He was in no doubt whatsoever thatDTI's decision in the case was correct inaccordance with the rules of the scheme.

10/07/02 The Minister of State replied tothe referring Member. He said he had noted thecontent of the letter to the adjudicator but itwas up to the adjudicator to make a final decisionon the claim having considered all theinformation at his disposal.

22/08/02 A policy official emailed acolleague in Scotland and said that they haddiscussed the fact that the Aberdeen trawlermenand their representatives had been lobbyingScottish Ministers about the Aberdeen 'poolsystem' and the fact that fewer former Icelandicwater trawlermen from Aberdeen had qualifiedfor payments. By way of background, the officialsent excerpts from letters sent by the thenMinister of State to a number of Scottish MPs.She advised that the Member for AberdeenCentral had always attended the meetings withMinisters in London to discuss the progress ofthe scheme and represented the trawlermen ofAberdeen and they were always aware of the'pool system' when the scheme rules were firstdrawn up. One excerpt from one of the Minister'sletter said the following. 'You may be assuredthat I am fully aware of the nature of theAberdeen "pool system". This type of system wasnot unique to Aberdeen. A similar systemoperated in Grimsby and, to a lesser degree, inHull. The fact that fewer vessels went toIcelandic waters from Aberdeen means that it ismore of a problem for former Aberdeentrawlermen. However, by the same token, theywere also less directly affected by the closure ofIcelandic waters as a result of the settlement ofthe "Cod Wars".'


30/10/02 A policy official emailedcolleagues and said that he had that afternoonmet the Member for Hull West and Hessle on amatter unconnected with the scheme. They hadnevertheless discussed the scheme for a fewminutes. The Member had said that the onlyoutstanding problem in his mind was that ofdeep sea trawlermen who, when unable to find adeep sea vessel, were told that they must seekwork outside the deep sea industry or lose theiremployment benefit. He had asked about anyviews that the independent adjudicator mighthave on the issue. As they were meeting thefollowing day to discuss a number points aboutthe scheme he wondered if they might touch onthat topic, perhaps in an informal pre-meeting.He had not really considered the question oneway or the other but as the Member had raised ithe thought they should respond.

31/10/02 A policy colleague responded. Hesaid they were aware of the difficulty theMember had raised when the scheme was set upand, as long as the work on other vessels was notfor a period of twelve weeks or more, it wasignored. However, under the scheme rules theycould not just ignore it. Although the adjudicatorhad made his position clear previously, he washappy to discuss it with him.

27/11/02 The legal section emailed policyofficials, copied to RPS. They said that at a recentmeeting with policy officials the legal section hadagreed to revisit the issue of voyages from non-UK ports in the light of the adjudicator'scomments and the concerns of policy officials.At their meeting policy officials had given auseful explanation of the way the scheme hadbeen implemented as a result of which the legalsection had a better understanding of the issuesthat made it difficult to argue that trawlermenmust only have fished out of UK ports. On astrict textual interpretation of the scheme theyconsidered it possible to argue that work on a

vessel that did not start and end its trawlingvoyage at a port in the UK was a 'relevant break'as defined at paragraph 3.2 of the scheme. Thatwas because for periods where the vessel did notoperate out of a UK port, the trawlerman was notworking as an Icelandic water trawlerman becausehe was not working on a vessel which was fishingout of UK ports. That was because, on a stricttextual interpretation, the qualification 'notnecessarily exclusively' could be argued to applyto 'made voyages' but not to 'fished out of UKports'. As work done on vessels that did not fishout of UK ports was 'work other than work as anIcelandic water trawlerman', it would thereforecount as a relevant break. However, it was alsopossible to interpret the language of the schemeso that that qualification applied to both 'madevoyages' and 'fished out of UK ports'. The schemehad been implemented according to a list ofapproved vessels. If a strict interpretation of thewording was taken and it was concluded that avessel must only have fished out of UK ports,that would mean that vessels that had madevoyages that did start and finish in UK ports so asto satisfy the scheme criteria could becomeineligible from time to time. That wouldobviously have unintended and undesirableconsequences. If they agreed that a vessel neednot have started and ended every voyage in a UKport, then once a vessel had qualified to be onthe list it remained there, and all voyages madeon that vessel counted towards a 'continuousperiod of work' under the scheme. As far as theycould see the scheme did not envisage that avessel could 'fall off' the list. Such aninterpretation appeared to be in accordance withthe purpose of the scheme, which was 'tocompensate former UK-based Icelandic watertrawlerman for the loss of their industry due tothe settlement of the 'Cod Wars' of the mid1970s', and not lead to claims other than oneswhich were comprehended by that purpose beingaccepted. The legal section's view was that it


would be difficult to persuade a court that theadjudicator's view on the issue was wrong,particularly as DTI would wish to argue for apurposive interpretation with regard to the 200mile limit point. They therefore considered thatthey should concede that a voyage which did notstart and end in the UK need not count as 'otherwork' as it then did.

02/12/02 The Minister of State met with theport MPs together with policy officials andrepresentatives from RPS. The MPs raised thequestion of the inclusion of vessels on the listand also breaks in service. The referring Membersuggested that policy officials could take intoaccount the reason for taking work outside theindustry (such as if his wife was seriously ill).Officials suggested that that would be open tochallenge for not using discretion in other casesthat people considered to be just as valid and itwould be very difficult to 'hold the line'. They hadto apply the rules of the scheme strictly andfairly. The Minister agreed to write to theMember for Aberdeen Central and explain howbreaks in service were calculated and whatcircumstances broke continuity of service.

11/12/02 The Minister of State wrote to theMember for Aberdeen Central. He said that apolicy official had explained at the meeting thatthey had never produced a definitive list ofexemptions to breaks in service of more thantwelve weeks in which other work was done.Rather, they considered each case on its merits asit was oonly work other than on Icelandic watervessels that broke continuity of service. Hisofficials looked at the specific details of whateach trawlerman was doing during a break ofmore than twelve weeks away from fishing onIcelandic water vessels and decided whether thatfell into the category of 'other work'. Naturally,the majority of the cases involved periods ofunemployment, sickness or 'walkabout' - all ofwhich were common to the industry. None of

those broke continuity. A number of differentcauses for breaks had emerged throughout thescheme, such as studying at Nautical College,work in the Merchant Navy, working on vessels inthe dry dock and also time in prison. In each casea judgment had been made in accordance withthe criteria laid down in the scheme rules. He saidthey could not, as the Member had suggested,take into account the reason for the break awayfrom the industry as that would involve officialsin trying to decide cases where there would beno documentary evidence after so much timehad passed to back up any statements made. Healso explained that, where a former trawlermanwas ill but also took work outside the Icelandicwater trawling industry during a break of morethan twelve weeks, then that period of workwould still break continuity. That was because hewould have ceased to rely on the Icelandic watertrawling industry for his livelihood. The Memberhad specifically raised the interpretation ofparagraph 7.9 of the scheme rules. That, in fact,related to the way in which such breaks werehandled and what sort of proof his officialswould need to help verify a trawlerman'sassertion that he was not working outside theindustry during a break. Examples were given ofthe type of evidence they required. The examplesin paragraph 7.9 were never intended to be a listof exemptions. He had copied the letter to theother port MPs.

200324/01/03 The referring Member wrote tothe Minister of State. He said that the break inservice rule was being unreasonably interpretedas not only a break from fishing (apart from beingsent to prison) but also as work in the North Sea.Such breaks were more common on the Grimsbyside of the Humber because that port had morealternative forms of fishing which men wererequired to pursue (by the dock office, and theeligibility rules for unemployment benefit, as well


as by the owners' own rules) if no Icelandic tripswere available, but also for qualifications such asMate's and Skipper's tickets since some owners,such as Ross, required that those taking ticketsshould work for a specified time in the North Seato gain experience before being put back intoIcelandic fishing. In Hull, with no alternatives, ifsomeone left fishing that was a clean break andthey therefore qualified for compensation. InGrimsby, particularly as the industry ran down,there were alternatives and those were thenbeing wrongly interpreted as breaks in service.Hence compensation payments to Grimsbytrawlermen were often less, particularly if theyqualified for two years between 1972 and 1979but were cut off because of a break from longprevious service. The result was a perceivedinjustice which had caused a lot of bad feelingsouth of the Humber and needed to be put right.The Minister had indicated he would bear theGrimsby complaints in mind in his closingdecisions on the scheme and the referringMember thought that he must do so. That meantnot treating North Sea work as a break in service.

06/02/03 A policy official emailed acolleague a copy of the referring Member's letterof 24 January 2003 for information only. Thecolleague replied that with regard to theMember's point about breaks in continuitybecause of fishing in other waters, his letteralmost answered his own point. He had statedthat in Hull, if a man could not get a distant watertrip, he was out of the industry whereas inGrimsby there were several varieties of fishing soif a man could not get work on a distant watervessel he could find other fishing work. He askedwas that not exactly what the scheme wasdesigned to do. That is, to compensate men whowere forced out of the industry by Iceland's 200mile limit but not to compensate (or tocompensate to a lesser extent) those who's workin the industry also included fishing different, if

less remunerative, areas. If that was correct, itmight more or less explain the differencebetween the total amounts paid out to Hull andGrimsby trawlermen.

November 03 DTI decided that they would againrevise the rules of the scheme so that it was clearthat from 26 March 2004 time spent in prison didnot count as continuous service with respect to aclaim under the compensation scheme.


Annex C

Other complaints received concerning 'relevantbreaks' in the Trawlermen's CompensationScheme

Complainant W: On 21 May 2002 thescheme's independent adjudicator told Mr W thatbefore 23 August 1975 his last voyage on a vesselvalid under the scheme was 7 February 1975. Thatwas a break of more than twelve weeks beforehe returned to a valid vessel during which time hedid other work (a 'relevant break'), even thoughhe had not chosen to do so.

Complainant X: On 16 November 2002 thescheme's independent adjudicator told Mr X thatbefore 18 April 1973 his last voyage on a vesselvalid under the scheme was 27 November 1972.That was a break of more than twelve weeksbefore he returned to a valid vessel during whichtime, as he was an engineer, he performed otherwork 'in the yard' supervising thedecommissioning of a valid vessel as instructedby his employers (a 'relevant break').

Complainant Y: On 12 July 2002 thescheme's independent adjudicator told Mr Y, whoworked as a radio operator, that before 10 June1971 his last voyage on a vessel valid under thescheme had been more than twelve weeksprevious to that date. In that period hisemployers permitted him to be ashore forcompassionate reasons because of his seriouslydisabled son and his wife's illness during which heworked on a temporary basis at acommunications centre, solely for the purpose offurther training in order to keep up to date withthe latest technology, as directed by hisemployers (a 'relevant break').

Complainant Z: On 4 January 2005 thescheme's independent adjudicator told Mr Z, whoworked as a captain, that before 29 March 1963his last voyage on a vessel valid under the schemehad been more than twelve weeks previous tothat date. In that period, Mr Z maintained he hadperformed other work on North Sea vessels asdirected by his employers (a 'relevant break') whoprevented him from continuing work on anIcelandic vessel by retaining Mr Z's certificate ofinsurance without which he could not go to seathereby forcing him to do North Sea work.


Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limitedon behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

ID5521985 02/07 360730 19585

Helpline: 0845 015 4033Fax: 020 7217 4000

Email: [email protected]

www.ombudsman.org.uk

Millbank TowerMillbankLondon SW1P 4QP

Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Onlinewww.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mailTSOPO Box 29 Norwich NR3 1GN

Telephone orders/General enquiries 0870 600 5522

Fax orders 0870 600 5533

Order through the Parliamentary HotlineLo-call 0845 7 023474

Email [email protected]

Textphone 0870 240 3701

TSO Shops

London123 Kingsway London WC2B 6PQTelephone 020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6394

Belfast16 Arthur StreetBelfast BT1 4GDTelephone 028 9023 8451Fax 028 9023 5401

Edinburgh71 Lothian RoadEdinburgh EH3 9AZTelephone 0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588

The Parliamentary Bookshop12 Bridge StreetParliament SquareLondon SW1A 2JX

Telephone orders/General enquiries020 7219 3890

Fax orders 020 7219 3866Email [email protected] bookshop.parliament.uk

TSO@Blackwell and other AccreditedAgents

put together in haste: 'cod wars' trawlermen's ... · 4 ‘cod wars’:...

Documents